Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Evidence

18 views
Skip to first unread message

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 28, 2001, 6:10:57 PM5/28/01
to
Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.

Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
formation of the genetic code.

If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
wonder.

Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
a loving God, as He claims to be.

Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
evolve in the face of entropy? This does not make sense since it is
evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
required to drive the process is not spontaneous and does not find its
source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do), but in the
currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.

Do we agree on this?

--
zoe

Jon Fleming

unread,
May 28, 2001, 6:32:06 PM5/28/01
to
On 28 May 2001 18:10:57 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

No, we don't agree. There's been plenty of positive free energy
around since the Sun started shining. All the energy involved comes
from the Sun, directly or indirectly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "evolve in the face of entropy", but
nothing happens that is not in accord with the second law of
thermodynamics. THis includes evolution. However, it's extremely
difficult (if not impossible) to do valid thermodynamic arguments
about complex systems in English so, if you want to discuss this point
further, please post equations.

--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email

dkomo

unread,
May 28, 2001, 6:50:36 PM5/28/01
to
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
> the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
> forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
> a loving God, as He claims to be.
>

...snip...



> Do we agree on this?
>

Nope, sorry, I cannot allow you skate on this. Since you have just
brought forth the concept of "God" you *must* provide incontrovertable
and independently verifiable evidence of the existence of Him/Her/It.
Otherwise, I'm compelled to consign the rest of your arguments to the
realm of the merely assinine.

Fair is fair. If you demand evidence and logical consistency of
science, then you should be ready to provide the same regarding the
realm of a hypothetical Supreme Being.


--dk...@cris.com


P.S. Just saying "I have faith that Him/Her/It exists" doesn't meet
the minimal standard standard of evidence.

leonardo dasso

unread,
May 28, 2001, 9:02:05 PM5/28/01
to

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>
> Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
> non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
> before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
> Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
> is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
> the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
> formation of the genetic code.

1. If a reaction is spontaneous, by definition it doesnt need any input of
energy.
2. What is the formation of the genetic code to do with the need for input
of energy?

> If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
> code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
> wonder.
>
> Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
> the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
> forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
> a loving God, as He claims to be.

I have no idea what a creationist would wonder.

> Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
> evolve in the face of entropy?

No evolutionist would ask such a silly question. Everything happens "in the
face of entropy". You could also wonder how can a fertilized egg become an
adult individual "in the face of entropy"? Or, how can I stay alive, or how
can my car work, or how can I tidy up my room, in the face of entropy?
Nobody in their senses would ask such a question.

>This does not make sense since it is
> evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
> required to drive the process is not spontaneous

Energy is not spontaneous, or non-spontaneous. Spontaneity refers to
physical processes.

>and does not find its
> source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do),

So according to you, plants are not biological organisms.

>but in the
> currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
> equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.

"ATP is an endergonic process"? ATP is not a process, it is a molecule. I
wonder if you understand what you are trying to say.


> Do we agree on this?
>

Of course not.
regards
leo

> --
> zoe
>


newbie

unread,
May 28, 2001, 9:01:59 PM5/28/01
to
In article <3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>, zoe_althrop says...

>
>Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>
>Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
>before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>formation of the genetic code.
>
>If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
>code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
>wonder.
>
I think the 2LoT has been around since the Creator set the heavens and earth "in
motion." This would be before life was "set in motion." The best explanation I
have found for creationists 2LoT arguments is found halfway down the page at:
>
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
>
"Clearly, if life originates and makes evolurtionary progress without organizing
input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a
closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at,
when they mistakenly say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics.
This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen
continually in the neo-Darwinian account of evolutionary progress."
>
>Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
>forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
>a loving God, as He claims to be.
>
My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a soul.
Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God -
the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
problem they ran into. Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not
physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an *addition*
to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God warned
them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance alone.
>
Hopefully you don't think I am preaching to you. These are my thoughts, and it
is not important that we agree spiritually, only that we agree in the belief in
God and his promise.
>
What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
evolved instinct. The "machine" part of life I can accept as being transmitted
through DNA, yet I do not see instinct, or thought, to be a natural material.
Perhaps this is a "life force", or soul, and is transmitted thru DNA, perhaps
not. I am looking for research that would shed light on instinct, and how it can
be transmitted genetically.
>
I don't think evolutionists would never consider this, as evolution is
unfalsifiable to them. They will say it is, yet if there were a challenge, it
would either be theoreticaly explained away, or they would claim that the
evidence just isn't in yet. The evolutionist answer to this question could be
that in the primordial soup, there was no need to "survive", that there were no
predators or environmental dangers.
>
[snip]

Jon Fleming

unread,
May 28, 2001, 9:31:02 PM5/28/01
to

Maybe that's the best explanation you have found, maybe it's the best
explanation anywhere. It's wrong. It's even incoherent. It is
confusing Shannon entropy with thermodynamic entropy. They are very
different things.

<http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html>
<http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html>
<http://www.escape.ca/~acc/reading/evol.html>
<http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/text.html>
<http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/CRC/>
<snip>

Boikat

unread,
May 28, 2001, 9:44:49 PM5/28/01
to

No. There was plenty of energy transfer present
to provide "positive free energy" on the pre
biotic earth, both from the sun and geothermal
activity (probably from some chemical activity
too.).

You said something about "evidence"...?

Boikat

Tom H.

unread,
May 28, 2001, 9:53:42 PM5/28/01
to
> Do we agree on this?

No...


wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 28, 2001, 10:02:24 PM5/28/01
to
On 28 May 2001 18:10:57 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed


>before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>
>Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
>before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.


how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?

>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>formation of the genetic code.

which is nonsense. there is no empirical evidence to support this, and
we KNOW the universe is older than the earth. we know the SLOT was
operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
on stars older than the earth).

so your argument fails even before its born. its nonsense.



>
>Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
>forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
>a loving God, as He claims to be.
>
>Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>evolve in the face of entropy?

because they themselves increase entropy in the process of life. thats
why we breathe. its why we crap. we are different. this variation in
populations does not violate the SLOT.
'


This does not make sense since it is
>evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
>required to drive the process is not spontaneous and does not find its
>source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do), but in the
>currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
>equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.
>
>Do we agree on this?

no. you need a firmer grasp of science before you can argue. your
basis assumption...that biological processes violate the SLOT...is
absolutely wrong.

>

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 28, 2001, 10:05:04 PM5/28/01
to
On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>>
>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
>evolved instinct.

wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
no instincts yet we're fairly successful.

>>
>I don't think evolutionists would never consider this, as evolution is
>unfalsifiable to them.

since you're wrong about life needing instincts, perhaps, as a
creationist, you'll take some of your own medicine and tell us why
your magical/superstitious view of life...which requires
'instincts'...has any validity at all. its totally wrong.

dkomo

unread,
May 28, 2001, 10:19:41 PM5/28/01
to
newbie wrote:

> My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a soul.
> Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God -
> the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
> perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
> problem they ran into. Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not
> physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an *addition*
> to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
> 2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God warned
> them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
> definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
> consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance alone.
> >

And how exactly did you figure all this out? Can you present any
evidence for these conclusions? You sure are demanding when it comes
to asking evidence of science. It seems to me that any intelligent,
rationally-integrated person would have as solid an evidentiary basis
for his own belief system as the belief system he is attempting to
criticize.

I await your answer with baited breath. I have always wanted to know
for certain whether or not God creates machines with "the breath of
life", or, indeed, whether He even exists. And I'm sure you, as a true
believer, can provide evidence -- nay, even some logical justification
-- for such assertions.

Surely, if He does exist, He would not want his followers to appear as
total idiots when they are challenged to justify their beliefs. I'm
sure you wouldn't want to let Him down (the consequences could be
dire), and so, no doubt, you'll shortly be providing us with an
abundance of evidence in these matters.


--dk...@cris.com

newbie

unread,
May 28, 2001, 10:32:18 PM5/28/01
to
In article <nhu5htsabbolmmab2...@4ax.com>, Jon Fleming says...
I am not interested in using 2LoT to disprove evolution; the link was included
only to show what I think the overall or general pattern of creationists
thoughts are about the subject.
>
But I will keep the links, thanks. But I disagree that the article confuses
"Shannon" entropy with thermodynamic entropy, and does explain they are
different. This is explicitly explained in the article. Here is one excerpt:
>
"This sort of entropy is clearly different. Physical units do not pertain to it,
and (except in the case of digitalinformation) an arbitrary convention must be
imposed before it can be quantified. To distinguish this kind of entropy from
thermodynamic entropy, let's call it logical entropy."

newbie

unread,
May 29, 2001, 12:37:11 AM5/29/01
to
In article <3B130935...@cris.com>, dkomo says...

>
>newbie wrote:
>
>> My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a >>soul.
>> Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God
>>- the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
>> perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
>> problem they ran into. Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not
>> physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an >>*addition*
>> to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
>> 2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God >>warned
>> them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
>> definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
>> consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance >>alone.
>>
>
>And how exactly did you figure all this out?
>
Microsoft calculator.

>
>Can you present any
>evidence for these conclusions?
>
Need a def of philosophy?

>
>You sure are demanding when it comes
>to asking evidence of science.
>
You also seem to need an understanding of what demanding means. This statement
shows your willingness to make accusations against others without the desire to
show any evidence.

>
>It seems to me that any intelligent,
>rationally-integrated person would have as solid an evidentiary basis
>for his own belief system as the belief system he is attempting to
>criticize.
>
Seems to me that you got one right - probably by sheer accident.

>
>I await your answer with baited breath.
>
I never would have guessed. I *believe* you do.

>
>I have always wanted to know
>for certain whether or not God creates machines with "the breath of
>life", or, indeed, whether He even exists.
>
Sounds like a personal quest. So you do not know "for certain." But you know
enough to be a sarcastic ass. Sounds like your idea of what a creationist thinks
when arguing against evolution.

>
>And I'm sure you, as a true
>believer, can provide evidence -- nay, even some logical justification
>-- for such assertions.
>
I have logical justification of my basic belief. As to what I wrote above, you
snipped the part where I state that these are only thoughts.

>
>Surely, if He does exist, He would not want his followers to appear as
>total idiots when they are challenged to justify their beliefs. I'm
>sure you wouldn't want to let Him down
>
Not possible to "let Him down." People make total idiots of themselves all by
themselves, God has nothing to do with it, and does not reflect on whether God
exists or not, and neither does it necessarily reflect on whether the "total
idiot" has evidence or not or whether he is right or wrong. THere are those that
"accept" evolution without having fully investigated the very complex
evolutionary theor(ies), and genetics, yet you would think them "right" even if
they thought natural selection was a fossil.

>
>(the consequences could be dire),
>
The consequences of letting God down because I fail to provide scientific proof
of His existence would be dire? Perhaps you will come back later after
revisiting basic Christian theology.

>
>and so, no doubt, you'll shortly be providing us with an
>abundance of evidence in these matters.
>
I owe you nothing. You are aware or have the resources to be aware of my God's
message and the ability to find your own answers. You most likely have access to
a Bible - it is not a scientific journal article that is hard or expensive to
obtain, and is not hard to read, or technical in nature.
>
Any thing I would explain, any perceptions and experiences of mine would be the
focus for more of your ridicule and sarcasm.
>
I have said before on this newsgroup that I will not discuss the reasons for my
belief because of this. I seriously doubt that you would even acknowledge what I
have written here as sincere, and will try to find holes in which to spill your
hatred or bias against religious belief.

newbie

unread,
May 29, 2001, 1:01:09 AM5/29/01
to
In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
>>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
>>evolved instinct.
>
>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>
Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not with
"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.
>
>>>
>>I don't think evolutionists would never consider this, as evolution is
>>unfalsifiable to them.
>
>since you're wrong about life needing instincts, perhaps, as a
>creationist, you'll take some of your own medicine and tell us why
>your magical/superstitious view of life...which requires
>'instincts'...has any validity at all. its totally wrong.
>
Since you have done nothing but say "nuh - uh," you are just typing meaningless
garbage - typical for evoultionists like you.
>
In my last post I said that evolutionists would never even consider what I
wrote, yet I did not include that at least one would call it a
"magical/superstitious view."
>
I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life does not
need instincts, as it would be useless to try with wf3h.
>
I will just leave him with a little dose of his own medicine:
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos8_1.htm
>
"It will be universally admitted that instincts are as important as corporeal
structures for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of
life."
>
"As some degree of variation in instincts under a state of nature, and the
inheritance of such variations, are indispensable for the action of natural
selection, as many instances as possible ought to be given; but want of
space prevents me."

H,R.Gruemm

unread,
May 29, 2001, 1:15:48 AM5/29/01
to
newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<mSDQ6.3168$rn5.1...@www.newsranger.com>...

<snip>
> I am not interested in using 2LoT to disprove evolution; the link was included
> only to show what I think the overall or general pattern of creationists
> thoughts are about the subject.
> >
> But I will keep the links, thanks. But I disagree that the article confuses
> "Shannon" entropy with thermodynamic entropy, and does explain they are
> different. This is explicitly explained in the article. Here is one excerpt:
> >
> "This sort of entropy is clearly different. Physical units do not pertain to it,
> and (except in the case of digitalinformation) an arbitrary convention must be
> imposed before it can be quantified. To distinguish this kind of entropy from
> thermodynamic entropy, let's call it logical entropy."

But although they have realized that there is a distinction, the
creationists then blithely claim that there is an analogy of the 2LoT
for their "logical entropy". This is obviously wrong, as any
radioactive substance demonstrates: it is a rich source of
information.

Regards,
HRG.

Bigdakine

unread,
May 29, 2001, 1:15:52 AM5/29/01
to
>Subject: Evidence
>From: zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>Date: 5/28/01 12:10 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>

>
>Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>
>Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
>before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>formation of the genetic code.

How about I throw you into the pit of Halemaumau crater and you let me know if
you *feel* any free energy..


Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"

Bill Thomas

unread,
May 29, 2001, 5:57:50 AM5/29/01
to

"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>
The above (and the part that was snipped below) is complete
twaddle. The 2LOT arises directly as an emergent result of the
behaviour of ensembles of particles in QED. Nothing about
present day life violates the 2LOT. If such were found to be
the case, physicists would immediately throw out the second
law as it would be refuted on the spot.

Since all the evidence indicates that life in the past followed the
much the same processes as life today, there is no likelyhood that life
in the past disobeyed the 2LOT either.

Futhermore, there is no reason to require a violation of the 2LOT
to allow for abiogenesis. Although the exact process of abiogenesis
that led to life on Earth may never be known. There was plenty of
energy available from the Sun to keep the earth well away from
equilibrium with deep space.

Regards Bill

<Rest snipped>


wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 29, 2001, 6:33:58 AM5/29/01
to
On 29 May 2001 00:37:11 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>>
>Not possible to "let Him down." People make total idiots of themselves all by
>themselves, God has nothing to do with it, and does not reflect on whether God
>exists or not, and neither does it necessarily reflect on whether the "total
>idiot" has evidence or not or whether he is right or wrong. THere are those that
>"accept" evolution without having fully investigated the very complex
>evolutionary theor(ies), and genetics, yet you would think them "right" even if
>they thought natural selection was a fossil.

and there are those who accept creationism merely because their
preacher told them it was true.

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 29, 2001, 6:33:04 AM5/29/01
to
On 29 May 2001 01:01:09 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
>>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
>>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
>>>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
>>>evolved instinct.
>>
>>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>>
>Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not with
>"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.

well, creationists were never very strong on logic, and this is
further demonstration of that fact.

when one makes a statement, its up to you to prove it, not up to me to
disprove it. if you can find evidence of human instincts, by all
means, do so. until then, you stand disproven.

>>
>>
>I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life does not
>need instincts, as it would be useless to try with wf3h.

humans have no instincts
humans have life
therefore you're disproven.

QED.

>>
>I will just leave him with a little dose of his own medicine:
>>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos8_1.htm

habits are not instincts. again, you havent proven that humans have
instincts.

>>
>"It will be universally admitted that instincts are as important as corporeal
>structures for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of
>life."
>>

this is what darwin actually said from YOUR URL:

>I will not attempt any definition of instinct. It would be
> easy to show that several distinct mental actions are
> commonly embraced by this term; but every one
> understands what is meant, when it is said that
> instinct impels the cuckoo to migrate and to lay her
> eggs in other birds' nests.

he doesnt define instinct beyond 'habits'. neither do you. so you rely
on a typical creationist trick...take something out of context from
150 yrs ago, and pretend it has rigorous scientific meaning today.

its not surprising in darwin's overwhelming and comprehensive survey
of nature that some things (such as 'race') had a different meaning
then than they do now. you simply fail to keep up with terminology.

as i said, find a behavior in humans that's instinctive. you havent
presented any, yet your argument hinges on it.

newbie

unread,
May 29, 2001, 7:05:50 AM5/29/01
to
In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 29 May 2001 01:01:09 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. >>>>Basic to
>>>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant >>>>reproduce
>>>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did
>>>>life "evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival
>>>>before it evolved instinct.
>>>
>>>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>>>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>>>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>>>
>>Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not with
>>"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.
>
>well, creationists were never very strong on logic, and this is
>further demonstration of that fact.
>
From the ad homenim master.

>
>when one makes a statement, its up to you to prove it, not up to me to
>disprove it. if you can find evidence of human instincts, by all
>means, do so. until then, you stand disproven.
>
You really are a joke, wf3h. Sure you are not a janitor? You made a statement,
you "prove" it.

>
>>>
>>>
>>I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life does not
>>need instincts, as it would be useless to try with wf3h.
>
>humans have no instincts
>humans have life
>therefore you're disproven.
>
>QED.
>
You are a real moron.
>
>>>
>>I will just leave him with a little dose of his own medicine:
>>>
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos8_1.htm
>
>habits are not instincts. again, you havent proven that humans have
>instincts.
>
And you can't read.

>
>>>
>>"It will be universally admitted that instincts are as important as corporeal
>>structures for the welfare of each species, under its present conditions of
>>life."
>>>
>
>this is what darwin actually said from YOUR URL:
>
What I copied from MY URL is what Darwin actually said.

>
>>I will not attempt any definition of instinct. It would be
>> easy to show that several distinct mental actions are
>> commonly embraced by this term; but every one
>> understands what is meant, when it is said that
>> instinct impels the cuckoo to migrate and to lay her
>> eggs in other birds' nests.
>
>he doesnt define instinct beyond 'habits'. neither do you. so you rely
>on a typical creationist trick...take something out of context from
>150 yrs ago, and pretend it has rigorous scientific meaning today.
>
Where is the word "habit" in your little quote? And you talk about tricks? Of
course you are not taking out of context, and what you offer is rigorous

scientific meaning today.
>
>its not surprising in darwin's overwhelming and comprehensive survey
>of nature that some things (such as 'race') had a different meaning
>then than they do now. you simply fail to keep up with terminology.
>
Off in outer space so soon, wf3h?
>
>as i said, find a behavior in humans that's instinctive. you havent
>presented any, yet your argument hinges on it.
>
Sorry, dipstick. I did not mention humans, you did. Just get the box of LARGE
bandaids back out and fix the wound on your head again.

newbie

unread,
May 29, 2001, 7:14:31 AM5/29/01
to
In article <3b137aee...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
I agree. Probably a larger percentage of them than of evolutionists I described.
And I also think that is about as far as your mentality can take you. Your next
post will likely include "You creationists, you..."

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 29, 2001, 8:36:56 AM5/29/01
to
On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:

positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
rock up a hill. If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
this means that there was a "rock pusher" around. The sun is not a
rock pusher, is it?

>All the energy involved comes
>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>

the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here. The absorption
or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
on the table at the moment.

>I'm not sure what you mean by "evolve in the face of entropy", but
>nothing happens that is not in accord with the second law of
>thermodynamics.

my original position in this thread is not how 2LoT affects us today,
but its chronological sequence with the genetic code, which code must
have been in place in non-spontaneous fashion BEFORE 2LoT kicked in.

> THis includes evolution. However, it's extremely
>difficult (if not impossible) to do valid thermodynamic arguments
>about complex systems in English so, if you want to discuss this point
>further, please post equations.
>

hmmm, I see you're laboring under the false impression that I am a
mathematician. At any rate, my point that there is evidence that the
genetic code existed before 2LoT began to operate, is not a
mathematical one, but a logical one that arises from observation of
the evidence of how 2LoT works and how the genetic coding system
works.

--
zoe

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 29, 2001, 8:56:05 AM5/29/01
to
On 28 May 2001 18:50:36 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:

>zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>> Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>> the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
>> forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
>> a loving God, as He claims to be.
>>
>
>...snip...
>
>> Do we agree on this?
>>
>
>Nope, sorry, I cannot allow you skate on this. Since you have just
>brought forth the concept of "God" you *must* provide incontrovertable
>and independently verifiable evidence of the existence of Him/Her/It.

you're easily diverted from the point, I see.


>Otherwise, I'm compelled to consign the rest of your arguments to the
>realm of the merely assinine.
>

dkomo, I want you to feel free to consign my arguments to whatever
realm you wish. But please know that the purpose of this thread is
to present evidence for one thing only -- that the genetic code must
have preceded 2LoT. "Sequence" is what I am proffering on this
thread. Can we stay with that?

My mention of God was only in the context of how anybody might relate
to the evidence, creationist and evolutionist alike. If you're a
creationist, then this may be how you would think -- and with no
effort to make the evolutionist think in like manner. If you're an
evolutionist, then this is how you might think, with no effort to make
the creationist think in like manner.

The bottom line is, how would anybody relate to the origins of the
genetic code and the origins of 2LoT?

>Fair is fair. If you demand evidence and logical consistency of
>science, then you should be ready to provide the same regarding the
>realm of a hypothetical Supreme Being.
>
>

have I mentioned any hypothetical Supreme Being in this thread? Of
course, you know where I stand on this, but it IS possible to discuss
science in a logical, consistent manner without appealing to either
your philosophy or mine.

So, once again, the evidence:

In light of how 2LoT works, is it reasonable for anybody, of any
philosophical persuasion whatsoever, to conclude that the genetic code
arose AFTER 2LoT is in operation?

--
zoe

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 29, 2001, 9:19:35 AM5/29/01
to
On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

snip>


>>
>I think the 2LoT has been around since the Creator set the heavens and earth "in
>motion." This would be before life was "set in motion." The best explanation I
>have found for creationists 2LoT arguments is found halfway down the page at:
>>
>http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
>>
>"Clearly, if life originates and makes evolurtionary progress without organizing
>input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a
>closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at,
>when they mistakenly say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics.
>This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen
>continually in the neo-Darwinian account of evolutionary progress."

hmmm, I don't think I hold to the concept that life violates the
second law of thermodynamics. There are many non-spontaneous
activities that cause entropy to decrease in one area, while
increasing entropy elsewhere. So it is possible for entropy to
decrease, without violating the 2LoT.

What I am proffering here is an origins question having to do with
sequence.

>>
>>Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>>the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
>>forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
>>a loving God, as He claims to be.
>>
>My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a soul.
>Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God -
>the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
>perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
>problem they ran into.

agreed -- except I would take that life span out to eternity, which
apparently was the original plan.

>Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not
>physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an *addition*
>to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
>2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God warned
>them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
>definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
>consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance alone.

interesting.

>>
>Hopefully you don't think I am preaching to you. These are my thoughts, and it
>is not important that we agree spiritually, only that we agree in the belief in
>God and his promise.

sure. I don't go for the quarreling-over-doctrine bit. Questions
asked? I'll answer to the best of my ability. Beyond that, you're on
your own.

>>
>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
>evolved instinct. The "machine" part of life I can accept as being transmitted
>through DNA, yet I do not see instinct, or thought, to be a natural material.
>Perhaps this is a "life force", or soul, and is transmitted thru DNA, perhaps
>not. I am looking for research that would shed light on instinct, and how it can
>be transmitted genetically.

I'd be interested in what research you dig up on this. I haven't
thought much about that area, to be honest.

>>
>I don't think evolutionists would never consider this, as evolution is
>unfalsifiable to them. They will say it is, yet if there were a challenge, it
>would either be theoreticaly explained away, or they would claim that the
>evidence just isn't in yet. The evolutionist answer to this question could be
>that in the primordial soup, there was no need to "survive", that there were no
>predators or environmental dangers.

do they really say this? I kind of doubt that one.

--
zoe

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 29, 2001, 9:52:28 AM5/29/01
to
On 28 May 2001 21:02:05 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

>
>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>> Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>> before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>>
>> Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>> non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
>> before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>> Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>> is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>> the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>> formation of the genetic code.
>
>1. If a reaction is spontaneous, by definition it doesnt need any input of
>energy.
>2. What is the formation of the genetic code to do with the need for input
>of energy?
>

ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
empowered. They are not spontaneous mechanisms, as far as I can see.
Since evolution is based on spontaneous reactions, then if the genetic
coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased. Yet,
if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?

>> If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
>> code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
>> wonder.
>>
>> Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>> the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
>> forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
>> a loving God, as He claims to be.
>
>I have no idea what a creationist would wonder.
>

and you're not required to have an idea. That paragraph was directed
to those who believe in creation.

>> Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>> evolve in the face of entropy?
>
>No evolutionist would ask such a silly question. Everything happens "in the
>face of entropy".

yes -- right now, today, and in the historical past. I'm talking
origins here, though.

> You could also wonder how can a fertilized egg become an
>adult individual "in the face of entropy"?

no, I wouldn't wonder that. The mechanism is in place and we see it
work every day.

>Or, how can I stay alive, or how
>can my car work, or how can I tidy up my room, in the face of entropy?
>Nobody in their senses would ask such a question.
>

agreed. I am not asking THOSE questions.

>>This does not make sense since it is
>> evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
>> required to drive the process is not spontaneous
>
>Energy is not spontaneous, or non-spontaneous. Spontaneity refers to
>physical processes.
>

okay, I stand corrected. Would it be better for me to use the terms
"exergonic processes" and "endergonic processes"? Exergonic meaning
spontaneous, and endergonic meaning non-spontaneous?

>>and does not find its
>> source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do),
>
>So according to you, plants are not biological organisms.
>

well, my beret must be slipping, as usual. I really meant biological
to refer to the animal kingdom and figured botanical would refer to
the plant kingdom. Should I call them all biological then?

>>but in the
>> currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
>> equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.
>
>"ATP is an endergonic process"? ATP is not a process, it is a molecule. I
>wonder if you understand what you are trying to say.
>

no, I'm saying that the charged battery is an endergonic process, not
that ATP is an endergonic process. I am saying that the same way the
charging of a battery is an endergonic process, so is the creation of
ATP from ADP an endergonic process. Am I still wrong?

>
>> Do we agree on this?
>>
>
>Of course not.

lol -- as if I really expected you to agree.

--
zoe

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 29, 2001, 9:57:39 AM5/29/01
to
On 28 May 2001 21:44:49 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

snip>


>
>No. There was plenty of energy transfer present
>to provide "positive free energy" on the pre
>biotic earth, both from the sun and geothermal
>activity (probably from some chemical activity
>too.).
>

is that positive free energy, or just plain free energy? Gibbs free
energy, maybe -- do I have to research that, too? Okay, hang on....

>You said something about "evidence"...?
>

yes, evidence for positive free energy in the genetic coding system.

--
zoe

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 29, 2001, 10:02:41 AM5/29/01
to
On 28 May 2001 22:02:24 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:

snip>


>
>how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
>violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?
>

I'm talking origins here, not how reproduction works today.

>>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>>formation of the genetic code.
>
>which is nonsense. there is no empirical evidence to support this, and
>we KNOW the universe is older than the earth.

I agree with you, that the universe is older than the earth. What's
the problem here?

> we know the SLOT was
>operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
>on stars older than the earth).
>

I take it you've measured the effects of 2LoT out in the far reaches
of the universe? Or are you saying that you're extrapolating our 2LoT
(as evidenced in nuclear processes), out to the rest of the universe?


>so your argument fails even before its born. its nonsense.
>
>>
>>Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>>the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
>>forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
>>a loving God, as He claims to be.
>>
>>Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>>evolve in the face of entropy?
>
>because they themselves increase entropy in the process of life. thats
>why we breathe. its why we crap. we are different. this variation in
>populations does not violate the SLOT.
>'

I am not saying that any of this violates the SLOT. Can you join me
on the same page, wf3h?

> This does not make sense since it is
>>evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
>>required to drive the process is not spontaneous and does not find its
>>source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do), but in the
>>currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
>>equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.
>>
>>Do we agree on this?
>
>no. you need a firmer grasp of science before you can argue. your
>basis assumption...that biological processes violate the SLOT...is
>absolutely wrong.
>

come back from left field, and you'll see I'm not saying what you
think I'm saying.

--
zoe

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 29, 2001, 10:05:49 AM5/29/01
to
On 29 May 2001 01:15:52 -0400, bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
wrote:

>>Subject: Evidence
>>From: zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>Date: 5/28/01 12:10 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>
>>
>>Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>>before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>>
>>Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>>non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
>>before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>>formation of the genetic code.
>
>How about I throw you into the pit of Halemaumau crater and you let me know if
>you *feel* any free energy..
>

there's a distinction between free energy, negative free energy, and
positive free energy, Dr. Stuart. Are you saying that if you threw me
into that Hawaiian crater, that I would report back to you that,
strangely, there lurks positive free energy in that particular
crater?

--
zoe

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 29, 2001, 10:32:12 AM5/29/01
to
On 29 May 2001 08:36:56 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>

>>No, we don't agree. There's been plenty of positive free energy
>>around since the Sun started shining.
>
>positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>rock up a hill. If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>this means that there was a "rock pusher" around. The sun is not a
>rock pusher, is it?

you bet it is. it has energy.

>
>>All the energy involved comes
>>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>>
>
>the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here. The absorption
>or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
>on the table at the moment.

since the nuclear reactions on the sun are spontaneous, and releasing
much free energy, they can drive reactions on earth to non spontaneous
reactions.

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 29, 2001, 10:40:02 AM5/29/01
to

no..i simply include you in the group of 'those' mentioned above. by
definition creationists cant think. you're no different.

>

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 29, 2001, 10:39:28 AM5/29/01
to
On 29 May 2001 07:05:50 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>
>>On 29 May 2001 01:01:09 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>
>>>>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. >>>>Basic to
>>>>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant >>>>reproduce
>>>>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did
>>>>>life "evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival
>>>>>before it evolved instinct.
>>>>
>>>>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>>>>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>>>>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>>>>
>>>Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not with
>>>"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.
>>
>>well, creationists were never very strong on logic, and this is
>>further demonstration of that fact.
>>
>From the ad homenim master.
>>
>>when one makes a statement, its up to you to prove it, not up to me to
>>disprove it. if you can find evidence of human instincts, by all
>>means, do so. until then, you stand disproven.
>>
>You really are a joke, wf3h. Sure you are not a janitor? You made a statement,
>you "prove" it.
>>

hardly. again, its up to you to prove a postive. you creationists dont
know logic. if i say you're a child molester, is it up to me to prove
it or up to you to disprove it?

>>>>
>>>>
>>>I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life does not
>>>need instincts, as it would be useless to try with wf3h.
>>
>>humans have no instincts
>>humans have life
>>therefore you're disproven.
>>
>>QED.
>>
>You are a real moron.

ah...a scientific rebuttal.

>>
>>as i said, find a behavior in humans that's instinctive. you havent
>>presented any, yet your argument hinges on it.
>>
>Sorry, dipstick. I did not mention humans, you did. Just get the box of LARGE
>bandaids back out and fix the wound on your head again.
>

you said instincts were necessary for life.

humans have life

they dont have instincts...

so much for your argument

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 29, 2001, 10:43:14 AM5/29/01
to
On 29 May 2001 10:02:41 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 28 May 2001 22:02:24 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
>>violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?
>>
>
>I'm talking origins here, not how reproduction works today.

and so am i. we have proof that the SLOT precedes life on earth.


>
>
>> we know the SLOT was
>>operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
>>on stars older than the earth).
>>
>
>I take it you've measured the effects of 2LoT out in the far reaches
>of the universe? Or are you saying that you're extrapolating our 2LoT
>(as evidenced in nuclear processes), out to the rest of the universe?

we can measure nuclear processes in stars. i realize to creationists,
the universe was created as a disorderly place, with random laws of
nature popping up every day. there is no proof this occurs

you require the laws of the universe are different in the andromeda
galaxy than they are on earth. prove it. its required for your
argument. we have no evidence to support it; in fact we have evidence
against it. so you're wrong.

but again, it confirms how much of creationism is based on random
chance.

>
>>>
>>>Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>>>evolve in the face of entropy?
>>
>>because they themselves increase entropy in the process of life. thats
>>why we breathe. its why we crap. we are different. this variation in
>>populations does not violate the SLOT.
>>'
>
>I am not saying that any of this violates the SLOT. Can you join me
>on the same page, wf3h?

see above for the sequence of SLOT vs life.

>
>>
>>no. you need a firmer grasp of science before you can argue. your
>>basis assumption...that biological processes violate the SLOT...is
>>absolutely wrong.
>>
>
>come back from left field, and you'll see I'm not saying what you
>think I'm saying.
>
>--

quit basing your whole argument on the idea there is no concept of
natural law, and we'll have a basis for discussion.

dkomo

unread,
May 29, 2001, 11:05:29 AM5/29/01
to
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> have I mentioned any hypothetical Supreme Being in this thread?

You said: "Why would God create living organisms to operate under


the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
a loving God, as He claims to be."

This sure sounds to me like a mention of a hypothetical Supreme
Being. The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity. And
that's why I challenged you to present some. But, I'll accept your
explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
creationist when asking the above questions. You get to dodge the
challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
hundreds of times already.



> In light of how 2LoT works, is it reasonable for anybody, of any
> philosophical persuasion whatsoever, to conclude that the genetic code
> arose AFTER 2LoT is in operation?
>

There's *no* possibility that it could happened any other way. The
2Lot was already around at the moment the universe came into existence
in the Big Bang.

You originally said:

"Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs."

This as false as anything could possibly be. Here's why. There is a
branch of theoretical physics known as statistical mechanics which is
considered by most physicists to be *the* most fundamental theory
which describes the universe. It is so primary because it makes no
other assumptions other than that the laws of mathematics and
probability hold. It makes no assumptions about any forces or
particles with which it deals, or any properties of those particles.
Statistical mechanics is so general that all of thermodynamics,
including the 2Lot, can be *derived* from it. If any other theory of
physics like quantum mechanics or relativity should be found to
violate the laws of statistical mechanics, then that theory would be
automatically invalidated.

Which means what? It means that statistical mechanics holds
everywhere in the universe at all times of its existence. In
particular, statistical mechanics was already in effect at the instant
of the Big Bang and has been ever since. And that is why your
assertion above is so totally false.


--dk...@cris.com

Nantko Schanssema

unread,
May 29, 2001, 11:42:17 AM5/29/01
to
zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):

>positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>rock up a hill. If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>this means that there was a "rock pusher" around. The sun is not a
>rock pusher, is it?

The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
falls back to earth as well.

Regards,
Nantko (just 750 kg/m2 of rain per year, where I live)
--
There is nothing so self-defeating as generosity: in the act of practising it,
you lose the ability to do so, and you become either poor and despised or,
seeking to avoid poverty, rapacious and hated. (Machiavelli, The Prince)

http://www.xs4all.nl/~nantko/

Derek Stevenson

unread,
May 29, 2001, 12:06:04 PM5/29/01
to
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b139472...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
> wrote:

[snip]

> > However, it's extremely
> >difficult (if not impossible) to do valid thermodynamic arguments
> >about complex systems in English so, if you want to discuss this point
> >further, please post equations.
>
> hmmm, I see you're laboring under the false impression that I am a
> mathematician. At any rate, my point that there is evidence that the
> genetic code existed before 2LoT began to operate, is not a
> mathematical one, but a logical one that arises from observation of
> the evidence of how 2LoT works and how the genetic coding system
> works.

"Observation" is obviously the wrong word here.

I'm not sure whether "misunderstanding" or "ignorance" would be a better
fit, but I'm sure it will become clear in short order.

Derek Stevenson

unread,
May 29, 2001, 12:21:59 PM5/29/01
to
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b13aa81...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 28 May 2001 22:02:24 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:

> >how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
> >violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?
>
> I'm talking origins here, not how reproduction works today.

Why do you think "origins" involved a different set of processes than
reproduction today?

> >>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
> >>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
> >>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
> >>formation of the genetic code.
> >
> >which is nonsense. there is no empirical evidence to support this, and
> >we KNOW the universe is older than the earth.
>
> I agree with you, that the universe is older than the earth. What's
> the problem here?

The SLOT has, as far as we can determine, been in effect for as long as the
universe has existed. The earth is a more recent development. Life on earth
is more recent still. Clearly, then, the SLOT precedes life.

> > we know the SLOT was
> >operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
> >on stars older than the earth).
>
> I take it you've measured the effects of 2LoT out in the far reaches
> of the universe? Or are you saying that you're extrapolating our 2LoT
> (as evidenced in nuclear processes), out to the rest of the universe?

Neither. It means that we've seen the effects of the SLOT, and have failed
to see evidence of the SLOT *not* being in effect, everywhere we've looked.

> >so your argument fails even before its born. its nonsense.

[snip]

> >because they themselves increase entropy in the process of life. thats
> >why we breathe. its why we crap. we are different. this variation in
> >populations does not violate the SLOT.
>
> I am not saying that any of this violates the SLOT. Can you join me
> on the same page, wf3h?

And yet you're saying that the "origins" of life involved processes that
*did* violate the SLOT.

You've provided no reason why that should be the case, of course. You've
just asserted that it must have been so.

> > This does not make sense since it is
> >>evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
> >>required to drive the process is not spontaneous and does not find its
> >>source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do), but in the
> >>currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
> >>equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.
> >>
> >>Do we agree on this?
> >
> >no. you need a firmer grasp of science before you can argue. your
> >basis assumption...that biological processes violate the SLOT...is
> >absolutely wrong.
>
> come back from left field, and you'll see I'm not saying what you
> think I'm saying.

The trouble, as usual, is that *you* have no idea of what you're saying.

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 29, 2001, 1:11:32 PM5/29/01
to
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 28 May 2001 21:02:05 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>>> Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>>> before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>>> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>>>
>>> Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>>> non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
>>> before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>>> Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>>> is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>>> the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>>> formation of the genetic code.
>>
>>1. If a reaction is spontaneous, by definition it doesnt need any input of
>>energy.
>>2. What is the formation of the genetic code to do with the need for input
>>of energy?

>ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
>empowered. They are not spontaneous mechanisms, as far as I can see.
>Since evolution is based on spontaneous reactions,

Point of clarification: Do you mean thermodynamically spontaneous or
spontaneous as in frequently occurring in nature? You see, evolution does base
itself on things that occur in nature, yes, but these things that occur in
nature are often not thermodynamically spontaneous.

>then if the genetic
>coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
>positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased. Yet,
>if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
>free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?

There are ways to thermodynamically couple energy to a system other than the
ones currently in use by metabolism. If you have a solution of amino acids, you
can evaporate the water and you'll get amino acid chains. You see, the removed
water has payed the entropy tax for the chains to exist.

Our metabolism still betrays what may be a remnant of this system. To bind
amino acids together, you remove a hydrogen from one of them and a hydroxyl
group from the other, which releases a water molecule as the two acids bind.

<snip>

>>> Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>>> evolve in the face of entropy?

>>No evolutionist would ask such a silly question. Everything happens "in the
>>face of entropy".

>yes -- right now, today, and in the historical past. I'm talking
>origins here, though.

And origins are not in the historical past?

Anyway, as I have proposed repeatedly before, there are more ways to
thermionically couple than are in use by our metabolism.

>> You could also wonder how can a fertilized egg become an
>>adult individual "in the face of entropy"?

>no, I wouldn't wonder that. The mechanism is in place and we see it
>work every day.

And certainly another mechanism was in place for every nonspontaneous reaction
in the history of the planet.

>>Or, how can I stay alive, or how
>>can my car work, or how can I tidy up my room, in the face of entropy?
>>Nobody in their senses would ask such a question.

>agreed. I am not asking THOSE questions.

You seem to be asking what method of thermionic coupling existed in the
earliest days of the planet. Am I correct?

>>>This does not make sense since it is
>>> evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
>>> required to drive the process is not spontaneous

>>Energy is not spontaneous, or non-spontaneous. Spontaneity refers to
>>physical processes.

>okay, I stand corrected. Would it be better for me to use the terms
>"exergonic processes" and "endergonic processes"? Exergonic meaning
>spontaneous, and endergonic meaning non-spontaneous?

No, you can still use spontaneous and nonspontaneous, but make sure the meaning
of the words corresponds to how you use them.

>>>and does not find its
>>> source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do),
>>
>>So according to you, plants are not biological organisms.

>well, my beret must be slipping, as usual. I really meant biological
>to refer to the animal kingdom and figured botanical would refer to
>the plant kingdom. Should I call them all biological then?

Biological refers to all life. If you mean animals, just say animals.

But you know that life on this planet predated animals by hundreds of millions
of years, right?

>>>but in the
>>> currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
>>> equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.
>>
>>"ATP is an endergonic process"? ATP is not a process, it is a molecule. I
>>wonder if you understand what you are trying to say.

>no, I'm saying that the charged battery is an endergonic process, not
>that ATP is an endergonic process. I am saying that the same way the
>charging of a battery is an endergonic process, so is the creation of
>ATP from ADP an endergonic process. Am I still wrong?

Depends on how we score partial credit. Yes, synthesizing ATP from ADP and
phosphate is *in itself* a nonspontaneous process, but the pathways of cellular
respiration couple another reaction (the combustion of glucose and, in
eukaryotes, the subsequent harvesting of high-energy electrons), which is
spontaneous and certainly exergonic, in order to perform the synthesis.

<snip>

"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 29, 2001, 1:22:31 PM5/29/01
to
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 28 May 2001 22:02:24 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>snip>
>>
>>how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
>>violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?

>I'm talking origins here, not how reproduction works today.

But the second law applied whenever there were chemicals capable of reacting
with each other. I think that threshold was crossed long before there was an
earth.

>>>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>>>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>>>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>>>formation of the genetic code.

>>which is nonsense. there is no empirical evidence to support this, and
>>we KNOW the universe is older than the earth.

>I agree with you, that the universe is older than the earth. What's
>the problem here?

That you seem to think the genetic code is older than the universe.

>> we know the SLOT was
>>operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
>>on stars older than the earth).

>I take it you've measured the effects of 2LoT out in the far reaches
>of the universe? Or are you saying that you're extrapolating our 2LoT
>(as evidenced in nuclear processes), out to the rest of the universe?

Well, if you point a spectrometer at a distant star, you can observe those
reactions occurring both in the far reaches of the universe as well as in the
distant past.

And yes, physical laws are considered to be a constant across the entire
universe in terms of both space and time unless evidence suggests that this is
not the case.

Evidence has not yet suggested that this is not the case.


>>so your argument fails even before its born. its nonsense.
>>
>>>
>>>Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>>>the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
>>>forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
>>>a loving God, as He claims to be.
>>>
>>>Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>>>evolve in the face of entropy?
>>
>>because they themselves increase entropy in the process of life. thats
>>why we breathe. its why we crap. we are different. this variation in
>>populations does not violate the SLOT.

>I am not saying that any of this violates the SLOT. Can you join me
>on the same page, wf3h?

But our point, which you may have heard before, is that the same reactions that
occur in our metabolism right now are requisites for the origin of life.

And the concept of thermionic coupling works in both cases.

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 29, 2001, 1:26:31 PM5/29/01
to
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 29 May 2001 01:15:52 -0400, bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine)
>wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Evidence
>>>From: zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
>>>Date: 5/28/01 12:10 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com>
>>>
>>>Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>>>before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>>>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>>>
>>>Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>>>non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
>>>before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>>>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>>>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>>>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>>>formation of the genetic code.
>>
>>How about I throw you into the pit of Halemaumau crater and you let me know
>if
>>you *feel* any free energy..
>>
>
>there's a distinction between free energy, negative free energy, and
>positive free energy, Dr. Stuart.

And what is this difference?

Oh, and BTW; energy, which in classical physics is usually calculated by
squaring a vector, is pretty much always positive.

>Are you saying that if you threw me
>into that Hawaiian crater, that I would report back to you that,
>strangely, there lurks positive free energy in that particular
>crater?

Yes. If you fell through a waterwheel or something, we could even harness your
positive free energy to drive a nonspontaneous process.

leonardo dasso

unread,
May 29, 2001, 1:42:43 PM5/29/01
to

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b13a20b...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 28 May 2001 21:02:05 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> >> Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> >> before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
> >> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
> >>
> >> Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
> >> non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
> >> before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
> >> Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
> >> is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
> >> the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
> >> formation of the genetic code.
> >
> >1. If a reaction is spontaneous, by definition it doesnt need any input
of
> >energy.
> >2. What is the formation of the genetic code to do with the need for
input
> >of energy?
> >
>
> ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
> empowered.

ATP is the form of chemical energy used by cells. I have no idea what you
mean by "the genetic code is empowered". The genetic code is not
"empowered". The genetic code is just that: a code. What needs energy in a
living cell -in the form of ATP- is: biosynthetic pathways, processes that
involve mechanical movement, and active transport of molecules.

>They are not spontaneous mechanisms, as far as I can see.

What are not "spontaneous mechanisms"?

> Since evolution is based on spontaneous reactions, then if the genetic
> coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
> positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased. Yet,
> if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
> free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?

The sun, my friend. It has been shining on this earth for billions of years.


> >> If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
> >> code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
> >> wonder.
> >>
> >> Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
> >> the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
> >> forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
> >> a loving God, as He claims to be.
> >
> >I have no idea what a creationist would wonder.
> >
>
> and you're not required to have an idea. That paragraph was directed
> to those who believe in creation.
>
> >> Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
> >> evolve in the face of entropy?
> >
> >No evolutionist would ask such a silly question. Everything happens "in
the
> >face of entropy".
>
> yes -- right now, today, and in the historical past. I'm talking
> origins here, though.


When life emerged, the sun was shining already. No problem there.


> > You could also wonder how can a fertilized egg become an
> >adult individual "in the face of entropy"?
>
> no, I wouldn't wonder that. The mechanism is in place and we see it
> work every day.

But you were not asking about the emergence of the mechaniism. You asked


"how does positive free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a

system?" Well, the sun, ultimately, supplies it.


> >Or, how can I stay alive, or how
> >can my car work, or how can I tidy up my room, in the face of entropy?
> >Nobody in their senses would ask such a question.
> >
>
> agreed. I am not asking THOSE questions.

> >>This does not make sense since it is
> >> evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
> >> required to drive the process is not spontaneous
> >
> >Energy is not spontaneous, or non-spontaneous. Spontaneity refers to
> >physical processes.
> >
>
> okay, I stand corrected. Would it be better for me to use the terms
> "exergonic processes" and "endergonic processes"? Exergonic meaning
> spontaneous, and endergonic meaning non-spontaneous?


The terms you use are irrelevant. You may choose to say spontaneous or
exergonic, or non-spontaneous or endergonic.
My point was that you were talking about energy being spontaneous. Energy is
not spontaneous or non-spontaneous. The classification into spontaneous or
non-spontaneous applies to physical processes, not to energy.


> >>and does not find its
> >> source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do),
> >
> >So according to you, plants are not biological organisms.
> >
>
> well, my beret must be slipping, as usual. I really meant biological
> to refer to the animal kingdom and figured botanical would refer to
> the plant kingdom. Should I call them all biological then?

It is not a matter of whether you should or should not call them biological
or not. Plants ARE biological organisms. They use ATP like us, and they have
many common metabolic pathways with us.

And if you are talking about "origins", as you said before, then what is the
point of talking about animals that did not exist then?

>
> >>but in the
> >> currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
> >> equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.
> >
> >"ATP is an endergonic process"? ATP is not a process, it is a molecule. I
> >wonder if you understand what you are trying to say.
> >
>
> no, I'm saying that the charged battery is an endergonic process, not
> that ATP is an endergonic process. I am saying that the same way the
> charging of a battery is an endergonic process, so is the creation of
> ATP from ADP an endergonic process. Am I still wrong?


The phosphorylation of ADP to give ATP is an endergonic process, yes.

regards
leo

leonardo dasso

unread,
May 29, 2001, 1:51:33 PM5/29/01
to

zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b139472...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
> rock up a hill. If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
> this means that there was a "rock pusher" around. The sun is not a
> rock pusher, is it?

Let's clarify some points that are blurred in your posts.

1. A spontaneous reaction has a negative delta G , in other words it
proceeds with a decrease of free energy. A non-spontaneous reaction has a
positive delta G. A non-spontaneous reaction can be coupled with a
spontaneous one and therefore made thermodynamically feasible.

2. Plants can use the energy of the sun to synthesize all their
macromolecules from CO2. This is called photosynthesis. Then the cows eat
the plants, synthesizing their own macromolecules from the energy and the
carbon sources in the plant. Then we eat the cows and get the energy we
need, plus a number of building blocks for our own macromolecules.

3. In the metaphor you were using , of course the sun is a rock pusher.

> >All the energy involved comes
> >from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
> >
>
> the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here. The absorption
> or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
> on the table at the moment.

See above.

regards
leo

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 29, 2001, 2:28:02 PM5/29/01
to
On 29 May 2001 10:02:41 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 28 May 2001 22:02:24 -0400, wf...@ptd.net wrote:


>
>snip>
>>
>>how do you know this? genetic reproduction occurs today without
>>violating the SLOT; why do you think this was different in the past?
>>
>
>I'm talking origins here, not how reproduction works today.
>

you didnt answer the question. i notice creationists generally dodge
questions.

you're just another one who cant answer the fatal flaws in the
creationist argument.

the question is:

WHY DO YOU THINK THIS WAS DIFFERENT IN THE PAST??

you wont answer. creationists are just theological thugs. you're no
different.

Boikat

unread,
May 29, 2001, 2:41:49 PM5/29/01
to
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2001 21:44:49 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
> >
> >No. There was plenty of energy transfer present
> >to provide "positive free energy" on the pre
> >biotic earth, both from the sun and geothermal
> >activity (probably from some chemical activity
> >too.).
> >
>
> is that positive free energy, or just plain free energy? Gibbs free
> energy, maybe -- do I have to research that, too? Okay, hang on....

What is energy from the sun? What is energy from
geothermal activity? (and from chemical activity?)

>
> >You said something about "evidence"...?
> >
>
> yes, evidence for positive free energy in the genetic coding system.

Where's the evidence you claimed? I saw word
games with thermodynamics, I didn't see "evidence"
to support your claim.

Boikat


>
> --
> zoe

Ken Cox

unread,
May 29, 2001, 3:11:03 PM5/29/01
to
zoe_althrop wrote:
> Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> before the 2LoT kicked in.

Oh, dear. This could be a problem, since the only reason
that protein translation works is the second law. Without
that, there is neither favorability for anti-codon bindings
nor direction to the chemical reactions. So can I expect
an explanation for how the genetic code operated without
the second law?

Hmm, after reading the rest, apparently not. It seems I
cannot even expect any evidence that the genetic code must
have existed before the second law -- or at least, there
isn't any argument to that effect in the rest of Zoe's
article.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

Noelie S. Alito

unread,
May 29, 2001, 5:02:59 PM5/29/01
to
"leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:3b13df8b$0$12242$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...

>
> zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3b13a20b...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

<snip millionth example of ZA's tortured facts and logic>

> > ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
> > empowered.
>
> ATP is the form of chemical energy used by cells. I have no idea what you
> mean by "the genetic code is empowered". The genetic code is not
> "empowered". The genetic code is just that: a code. What needs energy in a
> living cell -in the form of ATP- is: biosynthetic pathways, processes
that
> involve mechanical movement, and active transport of molecules.


How can you people stand doing this, post after post after post?
Is it because she's polite? Is it because she continually creates
new fantasy physics and biology rather than reasserting the same
dry mistake?

Of course, I only sample these threads about every two dozen
posts or so. Can anyone give me an example that I may have
missed that shows that she can learn anything that might conflict
with her pre-established belief?

Noelie
--
"W-A-T-E-R." --Anne Sullivan, _The_Miracle_Worker_

dkomo

unread,
May 29, 2001, 5:03:49 PM5/29/01
to
Nantko Schanssema wrote:
>
> zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):
>
> >positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
> >rock up a hill. If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
> >this means that there was a "rock pusher" around. The sun is not a
> >rock pusher, is it?
>
> The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
> vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
> falls back to earth as well.
>

Yep, and sometimes that water vapor comes back down to earth in a rush
within a limited area, as in a mountain canyon with a creek flowing
through it. Then you get a flash flood which tends to push a *lot* of
rocks around, and people too if they're unlucky enough to be there.
See the Big Thompson Canyon disaster in Colorado or the Rapid City,
S.D. flood.


--dk...@cris.com

dkomo

unread,
May 29, 2001, 5:56:20 PM5/29/01
to
newbie wrote:
>
> In article <3B130935...@cris.com>, dkomo says...

> >
> >newbie wrote:
> >
> >> My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a >>soul.
> >> Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God
> >>- the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
> >> perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
> >> problem they ran into. Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not

> >> physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an >>*addition*
> >> to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
> >> 2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God >>warned
> >> them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
> >> definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
> >> consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance >>alone.
> >>
> >
> >And how exactly did you figure all this out?
> >
> Microsoft calculator.

That figures (no pun intended). Microsoft doesn't make calculators
and never has. So, you did your figuring on an imaginary calculator
and the results speak for themselves.

> >
> >Can you present any
> >evidence for these conclusions?
> >
> Need a def of philosophy?
> >

If what you posted is an example of philosophy, then you must think
philosophy is a branch of fiction writing.

> >You sure are demanding when it comes
> >to asking evidence of science.
> >
> You also seem to need an understanding of what demanding means. This statement
> shows your willingness to make accusations against others without the desire to
> show any evidence.
> >
> >It seems to me that any intelligent,
> >rationally-integrated person would have as solid an evidentiary basis
> >for his own belief system as the belief system he is attempting to
> >criticize.
> >
> Seems to me that you got one right - probably by sheer accident.

Good, so let's see the evidence for your belief system.

> >Surely, if He does exist, He would not want his followers to appear as
> >total idiots when they are challenged to justify their beliefs. I'm
> >sure you wouldn't want to let Him down


> >
> Not possible to "let Him down." People make total idiots of themselves all by
> themselves, God has nothing to do with it, and does not reflect on whether God
> exists or not, and neither does it necessarily reflect on whether the "total
> idiot" has evidence or not or whether he is right or wrong.

Interesting that these statements could also be applied to the Easter
Bunny, Santa Claus, Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse. Why? Because they
are all products of the imagination. They don't exist. Try, for
example, substituting "Mickey Mouse" for "God" or "Him" in the
sentences you wrote above and you'll see that, indeed, the ideas make
as much sense as before.

> >
> >and so, no doubt, you'll shortly be providing us with an
> >abundance of evidence in these matters.
> >
> I owe you nothing. You are aware or have the resources to be aware of my God's
> message and the ability to find your own answers. You most likely have access to
> a Bible - it is not a scientific journal article that is hard or expensive to
> obtain, and is not hard to read, or technical in nature.
> >

Fella, you don't owe it to me, you owe it to *yourself* to get a grip
on reality. And as far as finding answers regarding God's possible
message or existence, the Bible is the very last place to look! It's
got some entertaining stories and is basically a book of mythology.

> Any thing I would explain, any perceptions and experiences of mine would be the
> focus for more of your ridicule and sarcasm.
> >

Ahhh, it sounds like it's had its little feelings hurt...

> I have said before on this newsgroup that I will not discuss the reasons for my
> belief because of this. I seriously doubt that you would even acknowledge what I
> have written here as sincere, and will try to find holes in which to spill your
> hatred or bias against religious belief.

No, no, you're wrong. I acknowledge that what you've written here is
sincerely deluded and that you absolutely believe in it. I never
accused you of lying. I'm just saying I think there's absolutely
nothing *real* about what you've written, unless you can present some
concrete evidence for it.


--dk...@cris.com

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 29, 2001, 6:34:34 PM5/29/01
to
From dkomo:

Oh, you've walked into it now. Start button>programs>accessories>calculator.

Of course, what that really is is using a Pentium as a calculator (it is one,
but actually using it as one is something different).

Now he has something to hold over *your* head for the rest of eternity or until
he loses interest, whichever comes first.

What I want to know, though, is what sequence of keys he pressed on this
wonderful calculator that led to his conclusion.

<snip rest>

Jon Fleming

unread,
May 29, 2001, 6:47:17 PM5/29/01
to
On 29 May 2001 08:36:56 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 28 May 2001 18:10:57 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)


>>wrote:
>>
>>>Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed

>>>before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>>>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>>>
>>>Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
>>>non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
>>>before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
>>>Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
>>>is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
>>>the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
>>>formation of the genetic code.
>>>

>>>If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
>>>code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
>>>wonder.
>>>
>>>Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>>>the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
>>>forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
>>>a loving God, as He claims to be.
>>>

>>>Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to

>>>evolve in the face of entropy? This does not make sense since it is


>>>evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy

>>>required to drive the process is not spontaneous and does not find its
>>>source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do), but in the


>>>currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
>>>equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.
>>>

>>>Do we agree on this?
>>>
>>

>>No, we don't agree. There's been plenty of positive free energy
>>around since the Sun started shining.
>

>positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>rock up a hill. If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>this means that there was a "rock pusher" around. The sun is not a
>rock pusher, is it?

If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
a "rock pusher".

>
>>All the energy involved comes
>>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>>
>
>the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here. The absorption
>or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
>on the table at the moment.

Define "non-spontaneous".

>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by "evolve in the face of entropy", but
>>nothing happens that is not in accord with the second law of
>>thermodynamics.
>
>my original position in this thread is not how 2LoT affects us today,
>but its chronological sequence with the genetic code, which code must
>have been in place in non-spontaneous fashion BEFORE 2LoT kicked in.

No, you have assumed (for what reason I don't know) that the code must
have been in place before the 2LOT kicked in. People who understand
thermodynamic and/or evolut8ion do not share your (somewhat bizarre)
assumption. You have not provided any evidence for or justification
of your assumption.

>
>> THis includes evolution. However, it's extremely


>>difficult (if not impossible) to do valid thermodynamic arguments
>>about complex systems in English so, if you want to discuss this point
>>further, please post equations.
>>
>
>hmmm, I see you're laboring under the false impression that I am a
>mathematician. At any rate, my point that there is evidence that the
>genetic code existed before 2LoT began to operate,

Such as?

>is not a
>mathematical one, but a logical one that arises from observation of
>the evidence of how 2LoT works and how the genetic coding system
>works.

Then you should realize you have a very high probability of being
wrong. Unless you can do thermodynamic math, you're almost certain to
go astray trying to do thermodynamics.

--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email

Jon Fleming

unread,
May 29, 2001, 6:51:08 PM5/29/01
to
On 29 May 2001 17:02:59 -0400, "Noelie S. Alito"
<noe...@nospam.jump.net> wrote:

>"leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
>news:3b13df8b$0$12242$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>>
>> zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3b13a20b...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>
><snip millionth example of ZA's tortured facts and logic>
>
>> > ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
>> > empowered.
>>
>> ATP is the form of chemical energy used by cells. I have no idea what you
>> mean by "the genetic code is empowered". The genetic code is not
>> "empowered". The genetic code is just that: a code. What needs energy in a
>> living cell -in the form of ATP- is: biosynthetic pathways, processes
>that
>> involve mechanical movement, and active transport of molecules.
>
>
>How can you people stand doing this, post after post after post?
>Is it because she's polite?

That's part of it.

> Is it because she continually creates
>new fantasy physics and biology rather than reasserting the same
>dry mistake?

That's another part.

Off the top of my head, I can't come up with any other parts.

>
>Of course, I only sample these threads about every two dozen
>posts or so. Can anyone give me an example that I may have
>missed that shows that she can learn anything that might conflict
>with her pre-established belief?
>
>Noelie

--

Jon Fleming

unread,
May 29, 2001, 6:53:04 PM5/29/01
to

But the difference in energy between two states can, of course be
negative. I think that's what she means.

>
>>Are you saying that if you threw me
>>into that Hawaiian crater, that I would report back to you that,
>>strangely, there lurks positive free energy in that particular
>>crater?
>
>Yes. If you fell through a waterwheel or something, we could even harness your
>positive free energy to drive a nonspontaneous process.
>
>"Between true science and erroneous doctrines, ignorance is in the middle."
>Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

--

Ronald Okimoto

unread,
May 29, 2001, 7:05:52 PM5/29/01
to

zoe_althrop wrote:

> Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
> the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
>

Snip:

Nathan Urban:

Explain the second law to Zoe and Newbie and get them to believe you and
I'll concede that your methodology is better than mine.;-)

Ron Okimoto

newbie

unread,
May 29, 2001, 7:57:27 PM5/29/01
to
In article <3B141CF5...@cris.com>, dkomo says...

>
>newbie wrote:
>>
>> In article <3B130935...@cris.com>, dkomo says...
>> >
>> >newbie wrote:
>> >
>> >> My philosophy is that God creates machines with "the breath of life"; a >>soul.
>> >> Man is another "machine" created with the soul, and also in the image of God
>> >>- the spirit. My understanding is that all these will die - return to "dust".
>> >> perhaps Adam and Eve would have lived a very long time without the little
>> >> problem they ran into. Yet the "sure death" they found was spiritual, not
>> >> physical. The early physical death they fell victim to was likely an >>*addition*
>> >> to their makeup(whatever the apple was), not as a result of violation of the
>> >> 2Lot or creation of the 2Lot, but because of the violation of what God >>warned
>> >> them not to do. What the "apple" was is the interesting part. There was
>> >> definitely some physical interaction between a real thing(apple) and the
>> >> consumption of that thing that caused physical death, not the disobeyance >>alone.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And how exactly did you figure all this out?
>> >
>> Microsoft calculator.
>
>That figures (no pun intended). Microsoft doesn't make calculators
>and never has. So, you did your figuring on an imaginary calculator
>and the results speak for themselves.
>
Perhaps they do. Get a copy of Windows. Choose
Start/Programs/Accessories/Calculator. After Calculator opens, click on help
then "About Calculator." It may surprise you to find you don't know everything
you thought you knew.

>
>> >
>> >Can you present any
>> >evidence for these conclusions?
>> >
>> Need a def of philosophy?
>> >
>
>If what you posted is an example of philosophy, then you must think
>philosophy is a branch of fiction writing.
>
Think of the Bible that way if you wish.

>
>> >You sure are demanding when it comes
>> >to asking evidence of science.
>> >
>> You also seem to need an understanding of what demanding means. This statement
>> shows your willingness to make accusations against others without the desire to
>> show any evidence.
>> >
>> >It seems to me that any intelligent,
>> >rationally-integrated person would have as solid an evidentiary basis
>> >for his own belief system as the belief system he is attempting to
>> >criticize.
>> >
>> Seems to me that you got one right - probably by sheer accident.
>
>Good, so let's see the evidence for your belief system.
>
Would you expect to be able to convince another of your belief if that other is
not rationally-integrated? You do not think I am, I do not think you are.

>
>> >Surely, if He does exist, He would not want his followers to appear as
>> >total idiots when they are challenged to justify their beliefs. I'm
>> >sure you wouldn't want to let Him down
>> >
>> Not possible to "let Him down." People make total idiots of themselves all by
>> themselves, God has nothing to do with it, and does not reflect on whether God
>> exists or not, and neither does it necessarily reflect on whether the "total
>> idiot" has evidence or not or whether he is right or wrong.
>
>Interesting that these statements could also be applied to the Easter
>Bunny, Santa Claus, Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse.
>
True!

>
>Why? Because they
>are all products of the imagination.
>
I would agree, except below you add God, so you have just made a large error of
logic. What you responded to originally was a religious statement, not a
scientific one. Yet you insist on a scientific answer. I need not answer the
religious question you ask, BUT you are here required to provide scientific
evidence of your statement. Show evidence that God is a figment of the

imagination.
>
> They don't exist. Try, for
>example, substituting "Mickey Mouse" for "God" or "Him" in the
>sentences you wrote above and you'll see that, indeed, the ideas make
>as much sense as before.
>
See above. Those ideas make no sense in context of mickey mouse, yet they do in
context of God.

>
>> >
>> >and so, no doubt, you'll shortly be providing us with an
>> >abundance of evidence in these matters.
>> >
>> I owe you nothing. You are aware or have the resources to be aware of my God's
>> message and the ability to find your own answers. You most likely have access to
>> a Bible - it is not a scientific journal article that is hard or expensive to
>> obtain, and is not hard to read, or technical in nature.
>> >
>
>Fella, you don't owe it to me, you owe it to *yourself* to get a grip
>on reality. And as far as finding answers regarding God's possible
>message or existence, the Bible is the very last place to look! It's
>got some entertaining stories and is basically a book of mythology.
>
You are preaching. Nothing more. I don't care if you think I am an ignorant
stupid 15 year old who has been brainwashed by family and church and can't think
for himself. Your whole argument boils down to nothing more than opinion.

>
>> Any thing I would explain, any perceptions and experiences of mine would be the
>> focus for more of your ridicule and sarcasm.
>> >
>
>Ahhh, it sounds like it's had its little feelings hurt...
>
Now is where I should begin to think you are a 15 year old.... In context with
what I have also said in this post is more than sufficient for an objective
person to realize what I mean is that it would not be constructive to give my
reasons for why I believe, and NOT because you hurt my feelings. The response
you just gave strengthens this conviction.

>
>> I have said before on this newsgroup that I will not discuss the reasons for my
>> belief because of this. I seriously doubt that you would even acknowledge what I
>> have written here as sincere, and will try to find holes in which to spill your
>> hatred or bias against religious belief.
>
>No, no, you're wrong.
>
Really? You do not see your own sarcasm and complete lack of sincerity?

>
>I acknowledge that what you've written here is
>sincerely deluded and that you absolutely believe in it.
>
You have no idea what I base my belief on. It is you who are deluded.

>
>I never accused you of lying.
>
Sorry, I already have enough morons chasing me around accusing me of this, and
most of it started with them the same way you probably are now.

>
>I'm just saying I think there's absolutely
>nothing *real* about what you've written, unless you can present some
>concrete evidence for it.
>
Sorry, I do not believe the sincerity of that statement. You are not "just"
saying that. I doubt you are interested in the slightest to know what my
evidence is for my belief, beyond gaining material with which to ridicule.

leonardo dasso

unread,
May 29, 2001, 8:45:29 PM5/29/01
to

Noelie S. Alito <noe...@nospam.jump.net> wrote in message
news:9f12q3$pe$1...@news.jump.net...

> "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
> news:3b13df8b$0$12242$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> >
> > zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3b13a20b...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>
> <snip millionth example of ZA's tortured facts and logic>
>
> > > ATP, ADP, chemiosmosis -- these are part of how the genetic code is
> > > empowered.
> >
> > ATP is the form of chemical energy used by cells. I have no idea what
you
> > mean by "the genetic code is empowered". The genetic code is not
> > "empowered". The genetic code is just that: a code. What needs energy in
a
> > living cell -in the form of ATP- is: biosynthetic pathways, processes
> that
> > involve mechanical movement, and active transport of molecules.
>
>
> How can you people stand doing this, post after post after post?
> Is it because she's polite? Is it because she continually creates
> new fantasy physics and biology rather than reasserting the same
> dry mistake?

I guess these newsgroups eventually tend to select people who are into
teaching,or who have a certain bend for teaching; the others must slowly die
out, due to boredom, frustration, anger or despair. I'm a lecturer and have
this silly drive to try to make people understand things; it is a hobby, in
a way. I'd say too that it is strangely addictive to try to explain things
to people who have no idea what they are talking about and use big words
anyway, or to people who won't change their minds no matter what.

> Of course, I only sample these threads about every two dozen
> posts or so. Can anyone give me an example that I may have
> missed that shows that she can learn anything that might conflict
> with her pre-established belief?

I'm afraid that won't be possible. But call again in a few weeks...

regards
leo

> Noelie
> --

dkomo

unread,
May 29, 2001, 8:50:02 PM5/29/01
to

No, I knew about the Windows calculator, as does any Windows user, but
the way newbie phrased it -- "Microsoft calculator" -- seemed to me to
refer to a physical calculator. If he had known what he was talking
about, he would have said something like "the Microsoft calculator
utility" or the "Microsoft calculator app". Or like that lunkhead
Erik, he would referred to a spreadsheet.

But I notice that newbie is already denying he meant a physical
calculator and is seizing on the Windows app in his rebuttal post,
which, surprise, surprise, was posted a substantial amount of time
after *yours*.


--dk...@cris.com

Tom Moyer

unread,
May 29, 2001, 8:56:51 PM5/29/01
to

"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:jxCQ6.3092$rn5.1...@www.newsranger.com...
<snip>

> What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours.
Basic to
> evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant
reproduce
> if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How
did life
> "evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival
before it

> evolved instinct. The "machine" part of life I can accept as being
transmitted
> through DNA, yet I do not see instinct, or thought, to be a natural
material.
> Perhaps this is a "life force", or soul, and is transmitted thru DNA,
perhaps
> not. I am looking for research that would shed light on instinct, and how
it can
> be transmitted genetically.
> >
> I don't think evolutionists would never consider this, as evolution is
> unfalsifiable to them. They will say it is, yet if there were a challenge,
it
> would either be theoreticaly explained away, or they would claim that the
> evidence just isn't in yet. The evolutionist answer to this question could
be
> that in the primordial soup, there was no need to "survive", that there
were no
> predators or environmental dangers.
> >
> [snip]
>
This is oversimplified for illustrative purposes. Please don't pick on
practical reality. I'm deliberately leaving out details required for a
"real" system in the interest of clarity.

Imagine a population of dogs where none of them have any instincts. They
just run around in their field or wherever, eating whatever they happen to
bump into.

Now, within any population, there are slight genetic differences among the
individuals. Take odors, for instance. Two people can smell the same
chemical and disagree widely on the pleasantness of it. Some don't mind it,
some hate it, some like it. The same would be true of this population of
dogs.

Suppose that one of these dogs had a preference for the smell associated
with a newly dead rabbit. Simply because it finds the odor pleasant, it
follows it and discovers food. It continues to do this, completely unaware
that it has any benefit from it. In reality, though, it has a hugely
greater chance of living long enough to reproduce, and pretty soon there are
lots of puppies sired by this dog (I'll leave sexual instincts alone out of
deference to good taste).

Now, those puppies also have slightly different preferences among odors.
More of them than the rest of the population, though, they will have a
preference for dead rabbit odor. Before too many generations pass, the
entire population of dogs will have a preference for following the odor of
dead rabbits - simply because those that do live longer and reproduce more.

So here we have the creation of an instinct. The population of dogs now
"knows" to follow the scent of a dead rabbit to find food. Its production
is totally mindless - just combinatorial mathematics. The random
recombination of the dogs' genetics makes for these preferences, without any
"mutations" at all. If a dog had a preference for the odor of live rabbits,
it would find they run away (those rabbits that did not have this instinct
would soon be dog food and gone). So a dog that liked the odor of fresh
rabbit _and_ liked to run would find it could get food the others couldn't.
While they're all waiting for rabbits to die, he goes and catches his own.
Pretty soon the "hunting" instinct has taken over the population - not
because the dogs have "learned" anything, it's just that those who don't
chase the rabbits don't get any food and die.

This is the how process of evolution works. The rabbits represent a food
source. Those dogs which are best able to take advantage of it survive and
pass those advantages on to their offspring. There are many other factors
besides competing for food that can drive evolution as well, but the essence
of these other processes is the same as this. Those that are able to live
long enough to attract mates and reproduce pass on their genes. Those that
do so more effectively than others take over the population.

Hope this helps,

Tom Moyer

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 29, 2001, 9:06:55 PM5/29/01
to
From dkomo:

I know. It's a pity this NG doesn't have that utility on AOL mail that lets you
see who reads what and when.

newbie

unread,
May 29, 2001, 10:29:48 PM5/29/01
to
In article <20010529210546...@ng-fo1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
You both know so much it's a wonder you can keep it all inside your heads.

newbie

unread,
May 29, 2001, 10:35:30 PM5/29/01
to
In article <3B1445BC...@cris.com>, dkomo says...
Unbelievable! Another "scientist" speaks!

>
>and is seizing on the Windows app in his rebuttal post,
>which, surprise, surprise, was posted a substantial amount of time
>after *yours*.
>
Well hello Mr. Holmes.
>
You have convinced me.

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 30, 2001, 12:00:51 AM5/30/01
to
From newbie:

Do I detect a note of jealousy?

Nicholas Buenk

unread,
May 30, 2001, 2:18:54 AM5/30/01
to

"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:87k5htggbuvvu17hg...@4ax.com...

> On 28 May 2001 18:10:57 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
> wrote:
>
> >Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
> >before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
> >the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs.
> >
> >Cellular functions give evidence of the necessity of initial
> >non-spontaneous chemical reaction. Positive free energy is required
> >before the mechanism of genetic reproduction can proceed with work.
> >Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
> >is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
> >the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
> >formation of the genetic code.
> >
> >If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
> >code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
> >wonder.
> >
> >Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
> >the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
> >forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
> >a loving God, as He claims to be.
> >
> >Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
> >evolve in the face of entropy? This does not make sense since it is
> >evident that in order for biological replication to occur, the energy
> >required to drive the process is not spontaneous and does not find its
> >source in external energy (i.e., sunlight, as plants do), but in the
> >currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate, which is the
> >equivalent of the charged battery, an endergonic process.
> >
> >Do we agree on this?
> >
>
> No, we don't agree. There's been plenty of positive free energy
> around since the Sun started shining. All the energy involved comes

> from the Sun, directly or indirectly.

There would also be energy from the lightening of thunder storms (though..
that is indirectly from sun...) and volcanos.

Nicholas Buenk

unread,
May 30, 2001, 2:24:13 AM5/30/01
to

But I also have a question, how is this energy used? What is able to
convert this energy into complexity?

Eros

unread,
May 30, 2001, 3:36:10 AM5/30/01
to

"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b12c62c...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

Until you can study up on thermodynamics enough to understand what the
2ndLoT is all about, this discussion of yours is going nowhere.
--
EROS.

"Will you speak falsely for God, and speak deceitfully for him?"
Job 13:7

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Hebrews 11:1

"Believers are justified in all things."
Acts 13:39


Karsten Knönagel

unread,
May 30, 2001, 7:12:39 AM5/30/01
to
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> schrieb :

| Spontaneous chemical reactions do not occur until positive free energy
| is expended; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that, somehow,
| the 2nd law of thermodynamics moved into operation sometime AFTER the
| formation of the genetic code.
|
| If 2LoT had been in operation before the formation of the genetic
| code, I think both creationists and evolutionists would have reason to
| wonder.
|
| Creationist: Why would God create living organisms to operate under
| the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
| forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
| a loving God, as He claims to be.

It doesn't make a difference if "god" created entropy before or after
creation of the genetic code, does it? Or was your "god" not the creator
of the physical laws which determine the universe's behaviour.

Karsten

Greg

unread,
May 30, 2001, 7:41:17 AM5/30/01
to
"Nicholas Buenk" <Ni...@NonSPAMtig.com.au> wrote in message news:<em0R6.26820$BU4....@news1.blktn1.nsw.optushome.com.au>...

> "Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:87k5htggbuvvu17hg...@4ax.com...
<SNIP> > >

> >
> > No, we don't agree. There's been plenty of positive free energy
> > around since the Sun started shining. All the energy involved comes
> > from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>
> But I also have a question, how is this energy used? What is able to
> convert this energy into complexity?

Chemistry reactions?

Greg
Welcome to Hell.
Here's your accordian.

newbie

unread,
May 30, 2001, 6:09:04 PM5/30/01
to
In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>
>On 29 May 2001 01:01:09 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b130353...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>>>
>>>On 28 May 2001 21:01:59 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What I find most intriguing is instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to
>>>>evolution is survival, and instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce
>>>>if it can't survive to reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life
>>>>"evolve" instinct when instint would have been essential to survival before it
>>>>evolved instinct.
>>>
>>>wrong. where did you get such a bizarre notion? all thats necessary to
>>>evolve is variation in populations, and natural selection. humans have
>>>no instincts yet we're fairly successful.
>>>
>>Wf3h, science and scientists usually *disprove* things with evidence, not with
>>"Nuh - uh." Your favorite phrase seems to be "prove it" so prove it.
>
>well, creationists were never very strong on logic, and this is
>further demonstration of that fact.
>
>when one makes a statement, its up to you to prove it, not up to me to
>disprove it. if you can find evidence of human instincts, by all
>means, do so. until then, you stand disproven.
>
>>>
>>>
>>I won't bother trying logical arguments to counter your claim that life does not
>>need instincts, as it would be useless to try with wf3h.
>
>humans have no instincts
>humans have life
>therefore you're disproven.
>
That's a LIE. I did not mention humans: "What I find most intriguing is

instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce if it can't survive to
reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life "evolve" instinct when
instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."
>
You evolutionist, you...lie all the time. Evolutionists are evil. They have no
integrity, no honesty, no morals. Who would not be outraged at the inhumanity
of evolutionists who lie and destroy all the progress we have made in 500 years.
Yes, I am bitter. Bitter bitter bitter.
>
Sound like the silly shit you spout, "scientist" wf3h???

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 30, 2001, 9:40:26 PM5/30/01
to
From newbie:

You seem almost to deliberately allow arguments to go over your head.

wf3h claimed that at least one group of living organisms on the planet does not
have instincts.

You expressed unwillingness to logically counter his claim (I wonder why...),
but very strongly implied that it was incorrect.

He indicated that humans do not have instincts.

You seem to think that just because you did not mention humans seems to make
his point irrelevant.

However, the only way for this to be the case is humans not being alive.

Are humans alive?

>"What I find most intriguing is
>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
>instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce if it can't survive to
>reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life "evolve" instinct
>when
>instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."

>You evolutionist, you...lie all the time. Evolutionists are evil. They have
>no
>integrity, no honesty, no morals. Who would not be outraged at the
>inhumanity
>of evolutionists who lie and destroy all the progress we have made in 500
>years.
>Yes, I am bitter. Bitter bitter bitter.

>Sound like the silly shit you spout, "scientist" wf3h???

When has wf3h expressed similar sentiments while substituting the word
"creationist" for "evolutionist"?

wf...@ptd.net

unread,
May 30, 2001, 11:06:41 PM5/30/01
to
On 30 May 2001 18:09:04 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:

>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...


>>
>>
>>humans have no instincts
>>humans have life
>>therefore you're disproven.
>>
>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:

and i never said you did. not once. you said instincts were necessary
for life. i said since humans have no instincts this is not true.
learn to follow the thread.

"What I find most intriguing is
>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
>instinct is central to survival.

no, instinct is NOT central to survival. humans dont have instincts
yet we've been around for about 150,000 yrs.

Life cant reproduce if it can't survive to
>reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life "evolve" instinct when
>instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."

it didnt. again, instinct is not necessary to survival.

>>
>You evolutionist, you...lie all the time. Evolutionists are evil. They have no
>integrity, no honesty, no morals. Who would not be outraged at the inhumanity
>of evolutionists who lie and destroy all the progress we have made in 500 years.
>Yes, I am bitter. Bitter bitter bitter.
>>
>Sound like the silly shit you spout, "scientist" wf3h???
>

funny you condemn science using your scientist invented computer. why
not just sit in front of a pile of silicon, and say 'ok god, make a
computer'?

thats how creationists work.

newbie

unread,
May 30, 2001, 11:25:20 PM5/30/01
to
In article <20010530213936...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
And his point is the one under consideration here, right?
>
How about whether his "point" invalidates my "point", as he says.

>
Quoting wf3h:
>
"humans have no instincts
humans have life
therefore you're disproven."
>
And this is supposed to "disprove" this: "What I find most intriguing is

instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce if it can't survive to
reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life "evolve" instinct when
instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."
>
You are just another "scientist" Gyudon.
>
[SNIP]

newbie

unread,
May 31, 2001, 12:10:13 AM5/31/01
to
In article <3b15b4b5...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...

>
>On 30 May 2001 18:09:04 -0400, newbie <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>
>>>
>>>humans have no instincts
>>>humans have life
>>>therefore you're disproven.
>>>
>>That's a LIE. I did not mention humans:
>
>and i never said you did. not once. you said instincts were necessary
>for life. i said since humans have no instincts this is not true.
>learn to follow the thread.
>
You follow the thread. I spoke of "evolving." You believe humans evolved, right?
You think they never had instincts?(regardless of whether we do or not)

>
> "What I find most intriguing is
>>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
>>instinct is central to survival.
>
>no, instinct is NOT central to survival. humans dont have instincts
>yet we've been around for about 150,000 yrs.
>
You SERIOUSLY think the second sentence supports the first? And you still have
not shown that humans do not have instincts. You have shown NOTHING.

>
>> Life cant reproduce if it can't survive to
>>reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life "evolve" instinct >>when
>>instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."
>
>it didnt. again, instinct is not necessary to survival.
>
Good Lord, man. How many times will you repeat this? It did, it didnt, it did,
it didnt. And out of how many animals that do have instinct, you decide to claim
that sapiens have none, to prove your point? Then you draw conclusions from
that?
>
>>>
>>You evolutionist, you...lie all the time. Evolutionists are evil. They have no
>>integrity, no honesty, no morals. Who would not be outraged at the inhumanity
>>of evolutionists who lie and destroy all the progress we have made in 500 years.
>>Yes, I am bitter. Bitter bitter bitter.
>>>
>>Sound like the silly shit you spout, "scientist" wf3h???
>>
>
>funny you condemn science using your scientist invented computer. why
>not just sit in front of a pile of silicon, and say 'ok god, make a
>computer'?
>
I guess that answers my question and this is just more of the silly shit you
spout. You know that is another lie, that I "condemn science", dont you. Yet you
have no integrity, no honesty to admit it. When you see your error, you just let
it be hidden in the computer and forgotten by your evolutionist buds.
>
>thats how creationists work.
>
By computer? Making a funny? Or is this just a variation on "You creationist,
you..."

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 31, 2001, 3:01:33 AM5/31/01
to
From ol' noobs:

In a manner of speaking, yes. Your argument, "How did life "evolve" instinct


when instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."

supposes that instinct is essential to survival. wf3h demonstrated that for one
species it is not.

I believe that bacteria also survive without instincts, since instincts
generally refer to the behavior of an organism and I'm not exactly sure that
bacteria behave in the sense biologists usually mean when they use the word.

>How about whether his "point" invalidates my "point", as he says.
>>
>Quoting wf3h:
>>
>"humans have no instincts
>humans have life
>therefore you're disproven."

>And this is supposed to "disprove" this: "What I find most intriguing is
>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
>instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce if it can't survive to
>reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life "evolve" instinct
>when
>instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."

Yes. Your argument presupposes that instinct is in fact necessary for survival.
That is not always the case.

>You are just another "scientist" Gyudon.

If by scientist you mean one who has dedicated his life to increasing human
knowledge about the universe, then thank you.

newbie

unread,
May 31, 2001, 4:09:08 AM5/31/01
to
In article <20010531030110...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon. And even if he had demonstrated that humans
have no instincts(which he has not), that does not mean that they did not have
those instincts in the past. If you wish to claim that human ancestors did not
have instincts, go for it. Due to our higher cognitive abilities to learn and
pass on our learning about survival to our children, the need to rely on
instincts and the ability to determine if we still have them are blurred. Does
not mean that we do not have instincts, nor that we could do without them.
Perhaps you fail to see that wf3h has not proved man does not have instincts. If
you agree that animals do, then when where how and why do you think man lost
them. What do you think drives you to reproduce? To stay alive?

>
>I believe that bacteria also survive without instincts, since instincts
>generally refer to the behavior of an organism and I'm not exactly sure that
>bacteria behave in the sense biologists usually mean when they use the word.
>
You are unsure of this yet you believe something about it?

>
>>How about whether his "point" invalidates my "point", as he says.
>>>
>>Quoting wf3h:
>>>
>>"humans have no instincts
>>humans have life
>>therefore you're disproven."
>
>>And this is supposed to "disprove" this: "What I find most intriguing is
>>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival, and
>>instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce if it can't survive to
>>reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life "evolve" instinct
>>when
>>instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."
>
>Yes. Your argument presupposes that instinct is in fact necessary for >survival.
>
Yes. For evolution. You don't suppose that knowing what happened in the past can
be used to "know" what will happen in the future, do you? (Assuming we have no
instinct) man *is* the "future", so to speak.

>
>That is not always the case.
>
Based on loose perception of the end result of evolution in man? Or coupled with
your loose perception of this and bacteria.

>
>>You are just another "scientist" Gyudon.
>
>If by scientist you mean one who has dedicated his life to increasing human
>knowledge about the universe, then thank you.
>
I mean one that "knows" what the evidence indicates.

crwydryn

unread,
May 31, 2001, 4:35:14 AM5/31/01
to
[piggybacking]

[enormous snip]

>>humans have no instincts


I have to disagree. Humans do have instincts. Human behaviour is not
strongly influenced by these instincts, but we do have instincts in any
reasonable definition of the word. Or do you also claim that chimpanzees
don't have instincts? How about other primates?

Yes, human behaviour is *primarily* learned, and these learned behaviours
frequently contradict the instincts we do have, but we are animals, and like
any other animal we have instincts. I suppose it does depend on where you
draw the line between instinct and reflex, but still it seems clear that
there are human instincts.


Some behaviours that are sometimes cited as instinctive are certainly
reflexive:

- an infant's tendency for rooting (searching for the nipple)
- the tendency to attempt to grasp things that touch the palm
- the tendency to turn in the direction of the cheek touched

However, there are more complex behaviours that are also apparently
unlearned:

- the urge to seek out and socialise with other humans (this one's debatable
I suppose)
- self-grooming (certain grooming behaviours are learned, but there are many
that to my knowledge are not learned, and are human universals - it is
striking that many of these are shared with Chimpanzees)
- the *learning*of*language* - if this were not automatic humans would not
be more or less universally language using.
- sexual signalling by adolescents is AFAIK universal, and typically not
voluntary (downturned eyes, blushing, smiling, covert glances, urge to
touch, desire to gain the other's attention, etc); the degree to which the
response triggered by a given individual is suppressible varies according to
individual "attractedness" of course, but this is the case for all mammals.
The only difference is the degree to which attractedness varies among
individuals.
- assuming defensive postures - including socially-triggered submission
postures - and
withdrawing in the face of something perceived as dangerous.

Again, whether or not these things are considered instinct depends entirely
upon how one defines instinct. I would tend to define instinct as follows:

- a complex and typically inflexible behavioural response to a certain
stimulus that is inherited, not learned.

Some would include: "...and is uninterruptable once triggered." but I think
this is a bit misleading. Instinctive behaviours are interruptable, but
unlike learned behaviours cannot be *suspended* - that is to say, neither
the organism nor the circumstances can stop the behaviour in mid process,
and then continue from that point to completion at a later time.
Instinctive behaviours must be triggered and cannot proceed to completion
from any point other than the first response to the trigger.

This is an important distinction, since like reflexes instinctive responses
*can* be interrupted, but typically continued exposure to the triggering
stimulus will result in multiple aborted responses. This can most often be
seen in mammals with a significant learning component to their behaviour;
instinctive and reflexive responses can be observed to be aborted when they
conflict with conditioning.

If you try to watch humans while as much as possible ignoring all cultural
manifestations, you can see quite a few aborted responses to environmental
stimuli. What makes humans more complicated to observe in this way is a
combination of the fact that learning is incredibly important to us
(resulting in many instinctive and reflexive responses being aborted very
early on - making them hard to see) and purely internal stimuli (imagination
etc) can provoke response in situations where an observer can't identify a
trigger.

To make matters even more difficult, we give the researchers who study
humans in this way a special name to distinguish them from those who study
other animals: we call them psychologists.

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevyn Winkless
ke...@canada.com


zoe_althrop

unread,
May 31, 2001, 11:21:08 AM5/31/01
to
On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
wrote:
snip>

>
>If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>a "rock pusher".
>

that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher." I am defining rock
pushing as a change in free energy. It requires energy from an
outside source to causes a decrease in entropy in the system upon
which the work is being done. I don't think that sunlight would
decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
positive free energy.

correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
surface. Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
sunlight here. This does not sound like spontaneous activity, to me.


>>
>>>All the energy involved comes
>>>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>>>
>>
>>the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here. The absorption
>>or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
>>on the table at the moment.
>
>Define "non-spontaneous".
>

any activity that requires more energy input in order to reverse the
normal direction of 2LoT. Again, if I've stated that incorrectly, I'm
sure you'll redirect me.

>>
>>>I'm not sure what you mean by "evolve in the face of entropy", but
>>>nothing happens that is not in accord with the second law of
>>>thermodynamics.
>>
>>my original position in this thread is not how 2LoT affects us today,
>>but its chronological sequence with the genetic code, which code must
>>have been in place in non-spontaneous fashion BEFORE 2LoT kicked in.
>
>No, you have assumed (for what reason I don't know) that the code must
>have been in place before the 2LOT kicked in. People who understand
>thermodynamic and/or evolut8ion do not share your (somewhat bizarre)
>assumption. You have not provided any evidence for or justification
>of your assumption.
>

If 2LoT were in place before the formation of the genetic coding
system, there has to be a satisfactory explanation for how
non-spontaneous mechanisms arose in the face of a law that says, more
energy is required to decrease entropy in a system than is available
through only spontaneous reactions.

>>
>>> THis includes evolution. However, it's extremely
>>>difficult (if not impossible) to do valid thermodynamic arguments
>>>about complex systems in English so, if you want to discuss this point
>>>further, please post equations.
>>>
>>
>>hmmm, I see you're laboring under the false impression that I am a
>>mathematician. At any rate, my point that there is evidence that the
>>genetic code existed before 2LoT began to operate,
>
>Such as?
>

the present existence of entropy and the present existence of natural
mechanisms that reduce entropy in a system. The mechanisms that
reduce entropy cannot themselves be a result of increased entropy.

>>is not a
>>mathematical one, but a logical one that arises from observation of
>>the evidence of how 2LoT works and how the genetic coding system
>>works.
>
>Then you should realize you have a very high probability of being
>wrong. Unless you can do thermodynamic math, you're almost certain to
>go astray trying to do thermodynamics.
>

I don't think I'm trying to "do" thermodynamics. I am trying to "do"
logic in understanding how thermodynamics interacts with nature.

--
zoe

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 31, 2001, 11:34:03 AM5/31/01
to
On 29 May 2001 14:41:49 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>> On 28 May 2001 21:44:49 -0400, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>> >
>> >No. There was plenty of energy transfer present
>> >to provide "positive free energy" on the pre
>> >biotic earth, both from the sun and geothermal
>> >activity (probably from some chemical activity
>> >too.).
>> >
>>
>> is that positive free energy, or just plain free energy? Gibbs free
>> energy, maybe -- do I have to research that, too? Okay, hang on....
>
>What is energy from the sun? What is energy from
>geothermal activity? (and from chemical activity?)
>
>>
>> >You said something about "evidence"...?
>> >
>>
>> yes, evidence for positive free energy in the genetic coding system.
>
>Where's the evidence you claimed? I saw word
>games with thermodynamics, I didn't see "evidence"
>to support your claim.
>

the evidence is right before your eyes, as evidenced by a genetic
coding system that operates on non-spontaneous activity.

--
zoe

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 31, 2001, 11:34:04 AM5/31/01
to
On 29 May 2001 13:11:32 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:

snip>
>
>Point of clarification: Do you mean thermodynamically spontaneous or
>spontaneous as in frequently occurring in nature? You see, evolution does base
>itself on things that occur in nature, yes, but these things that occur in
>nature are often not thermodynamically spontaneous.
>

there are frequently occurring spontaneous and non-spontaneous
reactions in nature. I'm interested in the thermodynamically
non-spontaneous. T

>>then if the genetic
>>coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
>>positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased. Yet,
>>if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
>>free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?
>
>There are ways to thermodynamically couple energy to a system other than the
>ones currently in use by metabolism. If you have a solution of amino acids, you
>can evaporate the water and you'll get amino acid chains. You see, the removed
>water has payed the entropy tax for the chains to exist.
>

what happens if, after thewater evaporated, you left the amino acid
chains sitting out in the sunshine for a prolonged exposure? Would
the extra energy pulsating down upon the chains cause them to organize
and develop and decrease entropy?

>Our metabolism still betrays what may be a remnant of this system. To bind
>amino acids together, you remove a hydrogen from one of them and a hydroxyl
>group from the other, which releases a water molecule as the two acids bind.
>

how did the amino acids, hydrophobic and hydrophilic, maintain their
formation in the primordial waters?

><snip>


>
>>>> Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to

>>>> evolve in the face of entropy?
>
>>>No evolutionist would ask such a silly question. Everything happens "in the
>>>face of entropy".
>
>>yes -- right now, today, and in the historical past. I'm talking
>>origins here, though.
>
>And origins are not in the historical past?

"historical" refers to documented, as in the timeline of history.
Origins are not documented in our textbooks as historically observed.

>
>Anyway, as I have proposed repeatedly before, there are more ways to
>thermionically couple than are in use by our metabolism.
>

and those ways are non-spontaneous ways.


>>> You could also wonder how can a fertilized egg become an
>>>adult individual "in the face of entropy"?
>
>>no, I wouldn't wonder that. The mechanism is in place and we see it
>>work every day.
>
>And certainly another mechanism was in place for every nonspontaneous reaction
>in the history of the planet.
>

what was this other mechanism?

>>>Or, how can I stay alive, or how
>>>can my car work, or how can I tidy up my room, in the face of entropy?
>>>Nobody in their senses would ask such a question.
>
>>agreed. I am not asking THOSE questions.
>
>You seem to be asking what method of thermionic coupling existed in the
>earliest days of the planet. Am I correct?
>

I am asking, is it reasonable to assume that in the presence of 2LoT,
that negative free energy would be the cause for the organization and
development of the genetic coding system, which gives evidence of
reduction in entropy.

>snip>
>
>But you know that life on this planet predated animals by hundreds of millions
>of years, right?
>

not from my worldview or my premises.


snip>
>
>>no, I'm saying that the charged battery is an endergonic process, not
>>that ATP is an endergonic process. I am saying that the same way the
>>charging of a battery is an endergonic process, so is the creation of
>>ATP from ADP an endergonic process. Am I still wrong?
>
>Depends on how we score partial credit. Yes, synthesizing ATP from ADP and
>phosphate is *in itself* a nonspontaneous process, but the pathways of cellular
>respiration couple another reaction (the combustion of glucose and, in
>eukaryotes, the subsequent harvesting of high-energy electrons), which is
>spontaneous and certainly exergonic, in order to perform the synthesis.
>

but this harvesting of high-energy electrons would not happen minus a
mechanism that clearly operates on the basis of nonspontaneous
processes. There would be no harvesting of high-energy electrons if
the nonspontaneous system was not first in place, right?


--
zoe

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 31, 2001, 11:34:27 AM5/31/01
to
On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:

>zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>> have I mentioned any hypothetical Supreme Being in this thread?
>
>You said: "Why would God create living organisms to operate under


>the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
>forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
>a loving God, as He claims to be."
>

>This sure sounds to me like a mention of a hypothetical Supreme
>Being.

I was hoping you would read that mention in context -- which was not
one of trying to prove the existence of a hypothetical Supreme Being,
but one of directing my question to creationists and meeting them on
their own ground, just as my second question was directed to
evolutionists and meeting them on their own ground. I didn't mean it
to become the proverbial bull/red flag.

>The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
>evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity. And
>that's why I challenged you to present some.

okay. Challenge accepted.

The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
the existence of Jesus God.

> But, I'll accept your
>explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
>creationist when asking the above questions. You get to dodge the
>challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
>hundreds of times already.
>

is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses? Or
has your doubting nature become so strong that at the merest mention
of God, you respond with paranoia and suspicion of anybody, no matter
how stable and centered such a person might be?

>> In light of how 2LoT works, is it reasonable for anybody, of any
>> philosophical persuasion whatsoever, to conclude that the genetic code
>> arose AFTER 2LoT is in operation?
>>
>
>There's *no* possibility that it could happened any other way. The
>2Lot was already around at the moment the universe came into existence
>in the Big Bang.
>

you know this is just an assertion, right?

>You originally said:
>
>"Submitted herewith: Evidence that the genetic code must have existed
>before the 2LoT kicked in. Call it a singularity, if you wish, but
>the evidence appears to point to just such state of affairs."
>

>This as false as anything could possibly be. Here's why. There is a
>branch of theoretical physics known as statistical mechanics which is
>considered by most physicists to be *the* most fundamental theory
>which describes the universe. It is so primary because it makes no
>other assumptions other than that the laws of mathematics and
>probability hold. It makes no assumptions about any forces or
>particles with which it deals, or any properties of those particles.
>Statistical mechanics is so general that all of thermodynamics,
>including the 2Lot, can be *derived* from it. If any other theory of
>physics like quantum mechanics or relativity should be found to
>violate the laws of statistical mechanics, then that theory would be
>automatically invalidated.
>
>Which means what? It means that statistical mechanics holds
>everywhere in the universe at all times of its existence. In
>particular, statistical mechanics was already in effect at the instant
>of the Big Bang and has been ever since. And that is why your
>assertion above is so totally false.
>
>

I agreed with you until you got to the point of origins. I'm sure
statistical mechanics will hold everywhere in the testable universe
(testable, mind you) because 2LoT is in operation now. Back at
origins, however, there is no way to test its presence at the Big
Bang. If there is, I would like to hear it.

--
zoe

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 31, 2001, 11:34:28 AM5/31/01
to
On 29 May 2001 17:03:49 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:

>Nantko Schanssema wrote:
>>
>> zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):
>>
>> >positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>> >rock up a hill. If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>> >this means that there was a "rock pusher" around. The sun is not a
>> >rock pusher, is it?
>>
>> The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
>> vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
>> falls back to earth as well.
>>
>
>Yep, and sometimes that water vapor comes back down to earth in a rush
>within a limited area, as in a mountain canyon with a creek flowing
>through it. Then you get a flash flood which tends to push a *lot* of
>rocks around, and people too if they're unlucky enough to be there.
>See the Big Thompson Canyon disaster in Colorado or the Rapid City,
>S.D. flood.
>

more spontaneous reactions, imo.

--
zoe

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 31, 2001, 11:59:41 AM5/31/01
to
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>snip>
>>
>>If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>>positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>>a "rock pusher".

>that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher." I am defining rock
>pushing as a change in free energy. It requires energy from an
>outside source to causes a decrease in entropy in the system upon
>which the work is being done.

No it doesn't. A local decrease in energy can be created by a reaction endemic
to the system.

I don't know why you don't think this is possible. If the entire universe is
considered a system, how do you think we can get energy from the outside? The
universe does undergo localized entropy decreases, you know.

>I don't think that sunlight would
>decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
>of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
>positive free energy.

But what if these chemicals *were* the system?

And the use of evaporation to decrease energy has been very well-documented.
It's called rock candy.

>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>surface.

What do you think a suntan is?

Or photosynthesis?

>Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
>order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
>systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
>sunlight here. This does not sound like spontaneous activity, to me.

Ah, there you are wrong. The ATP that reacts with the enzymes in order for them
to do their job is spontaneous. The reaction catalyzed by the enzyme, though,
is not.

And in photosynthesis the energy otherwise supplied by ATP is supplied by
photons.

Most college level biology texts devote a chapter to photosynthesis. Read well.

>>>>All the energy involved comes
>>>>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here. The absorption
>>>or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
>>>on the table at the moment.

>>Define "non-spontaneous".

>any activity that requires more energy input in order to reverse the
>normal direction of 2LoT.

Any reaction that results in a net decrease of free energy, yes.

>Again, if I've stated that incorrectly, I'm
>sure you'll redirect me.

>>>>I'm not sure what you mean by "evolve in the face of entropy", but
>>>>nothing happens that is not in accord with the second law of
>>>>thermodynamics.
>>>
>>>my original position in this thread is not how 2LoT affects us today,
>>>but its chronological sequence with the genetic code, which code must
>>>have been in place in non-spontaneous fashion BEFORE 2LoT kicked in.
>>
>>No, you have assumed (for what reason I don't know) that the code must
>>have been in place before the 2LOT kicked in. People who understand
>>thermodynamic and/or evolut8ion do not share your (somewhat bizarre)
>>assumption. You have not provided any evidence for or justification
>>of your assumption.

>If 2LoT were in place before the formation of the genetic coding
>system, there has to be a satisfactory explanation for how
>non-spontaneous mechanisms arose in the face of a law that says, more
>energy is required to decrease entropy in a system than is available
>through only spontaneous reactions.

The law doesn't say that at all. In fact, the law says quite the opposite. The
energy in spontaneous reactions can be harnessed to power nonspontaneous
reactions. This concept is called thermionic coupling. This has been explained
several times.

Do you just mentally edit it out every time you see it?

I will repeat: thermionic coupling.

>>>> THis includes evolution. However, it's extremely
>>>>difficult (if not impossible) to do valid thermodynamic arguments
>>>>about complex systems in English so, if you want to discuss this point
>>>>further, please post equations.

>>>hmmm, I see you're laboring under the false impression that I am a
>>>mathematician. At any rate, my point that there is evidence that the
>>>genetic code existed before 2LoT began to operate,

>>Such as?

>the present existence of entropy and the present existence of natural
>mechanisms that reduce entropy in a system. The mechanisms that
>reduce entropy cannot themselves be a result of increased entropy.

Why?

>>>is not a
>>>mathematical one, but a logical one that arises from observation of
>>>the evidence of how 2LoT works and how the genetic coding system
>>>works.

>>Then you should realize you have a very high probability of being
>>wrong. Unless you can do thermodynamic math, you're almost certain to
>>go astray trying to do thermodynamics.

>I don't think I'm trying to "do" thermodynamics.

Well, both entropy and free energy can be quantified. If you assert with such
confidence that one state has a higher or lower free energy than another state,
you will have to back it up with some math.

You do *know* the math, right?

>I am trying to "do"
>logic in understanding how thermodynamics interacts with nature.

Maybe you should start by learning the math...

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 31, 2001, 12:13:41 PM5/31/01
to
From Zoe Althrop:

From Zoe Althrop:

>On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>>zoe_althrop wrote:
>>>
>>> have I mentioned any hypothetical Supreme Being in this thread?

>>You said: "Why would God create living organisms to operate under
>>the degenerative influences of entropy? Why would He create life
>>forms that follow a path to death? This does not make sense if He is
>>a loving God, as He claims to be."

>>This sure sounds to me like a mention of a hypothetical Supreme
>>Being.

>I was hoping you would read that mention in context -- which was not
>one of trying to prove the existence of a hypothetical Supreme Being,
>but one of directing my question to creationists and meeting them on
>their own ground, just as my second question was directed to
>evolutionists and meeting them on their own ground. I didn't mean it
>to become the proverbial bull/red flag.

In other words, you were begging the question to those who routinely beg the
same question.

>>The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
>>evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity. And
>>that's why I challenged you to present some.

>okay. Challenge accepted.

>The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
>trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
>the existence of Jesus God.

Actually, that's mostly testimony for the existence of Jesus. For the existence
of the Divine Watchmaker itself, you'll need something empirical, since you
can't have any reliable witnesses.

>> But, I'll accept your
>>explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
>>creationist when asking the above questions. You get to dodge the
>>challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
>>hundreds of times already.

>is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?

Because they have no empirical evidence and most of them didn't have the
scientific background to properly analyze what they saw.

And they actually saw Jesus, not the Divine Watchmaker.

>Or
>has your doubting nature become so strong that at the merest mention
>of God, you respond with paranoia and suspicion of anybody, no matter
>how stable and centered such a person might be?

He wants empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is objective and does not hinge
on the reliability of a witness.

>>> In light of how 2LoT works, is it reasonable for anybody, of any
>>> philosophical persuasion whatsoever, to conclude that the genetic code
>>> arose AFTER 2LoT is in operation?

>>There's *no* possibility that it could happened any other way. The
>>2Lot was already around at the moment the universe came into existence
>>in the Big Bang.

>you know this is just an assertion, right?

It's actually one of the axia of the scientific method: that physical laws
operate identically at every point in space-time.

Obviously we can't prove this, but we have evidence of physical laws operating
many places in the universe at many points in history, thanks to spectrometry.

Do you have any evidence of physical laws *not* operating as expected?

>>You originally said:

You do raise an interesting point...chemical thermodynamics cannot predate the
existence of chemicals, so even if the second law operated in the first few
fractions of a second of the universe, I'd be surprised if it did so in a
recognizable form.

But what of it? Life on this planet started between eight and twelve billion
years after the big bang, when there were plenty of chemicals and chemical
thermodynamics acted.

Boikat

unread,
May 31, 2001, 12:10:28 PM5/31/01
to

That "non-spontaneous activity" does not support
your initial claims, however.

Boikat

>
> --
> zoe

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 31, 2001, 12:41:30 PM5/31/01
to
From newbie:

>In article <20010531030110...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>From ol' noobs:
>>
>>>In article <20010530213936...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>
>>>>From newbie:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>>>

<snip>

>Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon.
Because he was making an existentially negative claim, newbie.

>And even if he had demonstrated that
>humans
>have no instincts(which he has not),

Yes he has. I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which is
excellent evidence for his claim.

You see, the burden of providing evidence is on one who makes an existentially
positive claim. It is up to the hypothetical person who claims that humans do
have instincts in order to disprove wf3h's claim. As it stands, the conspicuous
lack of evidenced instincts in humans is quite well-supported.

>that does not mean that they did not
>have
>those instincts in the past.

Doesn't matter. They do not have instincts *now*; they are alive *now*, and
your supposition that instincts are necessary for survival is incorrect.

<snip continuation of this line of reasoning>

>Perhaps you fail to see that wf3h has not proved man does not have instincts.

He has provided evidence in the form that we have yet to see such instincts
demonstrated. If you can demonstrate human instincts, feel free to, but until
then don't commit the fallacy of the possible proof.

>If
>you agree that animals do, then when where how and why do you think man lost
>them. What do you think drives you to reproduce? To stay alive?

Because the act that leads to reproduction is typically a somewhat pleasurable
experience, as well as being a good cardiovascular workout.

That, and society has conditioned us pretty well.

>>I believe that bacteria also survive without instincts, since instincts
>>generally refer to the behavior of an organism and I'm not exactly sure that
>>bacteria behave in the sense biologists usually mean when they use the word.

>You are unsure of this yet you believe something about it?

Of course. I believe it. I don't know it yet.

>>>How about whether his "point" invalidates my "point", as he says.
>>>>
>>>Quoting wf3h:
>>>>
>>>"humans have no instincts
>>>humans have life
>>>therefore you're disproven."

>>>And this is supposed to "disprove" this: "What I find most intriguing is
>>>instinct, "innate" drives or behaviours. Basic to evolution is survival,
>and
>>>instinct is central to survival. Life cant reproduce if it can't survive to
>>>reproduce. And survival is no simple matter. How did life "evolve" instinct
>>>when
>>>instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved instinct."

>>Yes. Your argument presupposes that instinct is in fact necessary for
>>survival.

>Yes. For evolution. You don't suppose that knowing what happened in the past
>can
>be used to "know" what will happen in the future, do you? (Assuming we have
>no
>instinct) man *is* the "future", so to speak.

And man is alive, which is kinda the point...

>>That is not always the case.

>Based on loose perception of the end result of evolution in man? Or coupled
>with
>your loose perception of this and bacteria.

I hardly think my perception is loose, and until you present evidence of
instincts in man or in bacteria, it will remain pretty tight.

>>>You are just another "scientist" Gyudon.
>>
>>If by scientist you mean one who has dedicated his life to increasing human
>>knowledge about the universe, then thank you.

>I mean one that "knows" what the evidence indicates.

If by that you mean someone who can take the information before him and form a
fairly accurate system about the workings of the universe, then thanks you.

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 31, 2001, 12:53:35 PM5/31/01
to
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 29 May 2001 13:11:32 -0400, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) wrote:
>
>snip>

>>Point of clarification: Do you mean thermodynamically spontaneous or
>>spontaneous as in frequently occurring in nature? You see, evolution does
>base
>>itself on things that occur in nature, yes, but these things that occur in
>>nature are often not thermodynamically spontaneous.

>there are frequently occurring spontaneous and non-spontaneous
>reactions in nature. I'm interested in the thermodynamically
>non-spontaneous.

Okay.

>>>then if the genetic
>>>coding system tries to evolve its various non-spontaneous mechanisms,
>>>positive free energy is required if entropy is to be decreased. Yet,
>>>if 2LoT is in place before the genetic code evolves, how does positive
>>>free energy appear on the scene to reduce entropy of a system?

>>There are ways to thermodynamically couple energy to a system other than the
>>ones currently in use by metabolism. If you have a solution of amino acids,
>you
>>can evaporate the water and you'll get amino acid chains. You see, the
>removed
>>water has payed the entropy tax for the chains to exist.

>what happens if, after thewater evaporated, you left the amino acid
>chains sitting out in the sunshine for a prolonged exposure? Would
>the extra energy pulsating down upon the chains cause them to organize
>and develop and decrease entropy?

It actually wouldn't accomplish that much, but since life was in water for all
but the most recent tenth of its existence, I think we can say with some
confidence that the precursors to life were in a pool of water that had enough
water in it to pay the entropy tax.

>>Our metabolism still betrays what may be a remnant of this system. To bind
>>amino acids together, you remove a hydrogen from one of them and a hydroxyl
>>group from the other, which releases a water molecule as the two acids bind.

>how did the amino acids, hydrophobic and hydrophilic, maintain their
>formation in the primordial waters?

The same way they do now. Chemical bonds.

>><snip>
>>
>>>>> Evolutionist: (Should be asking) How is it possible for life forms to
>>>>> evolve in the face of entropy?
>>
>>>>No evolutionist would ask such a silly question. Everything happens "in
>the
>>>>face of entropy".
>>
>>>yes -- right now, today, and in the historical past. I'm talking
>>>origins here, though.
>>
>>And origins are not in the historical past?

>"historical" refers to documented, as in the timeline of history.
>Origins are not documented in our textbooks as historically observed.

But is it not an axiom of the scientific method that physical laws do not
change over time?

>>Anyway, as I have proposed repeatedly before, there are more ways to
>>thermionically couple than are in use by our metabolism.

>and those ways are non-spontaneous ways.

Actually, those ways are spontaneous. You use the energy from a spontaneous
reaction to drive a nonspontaneous one, as has been repeatedly been explained.

>>>> You could also wonder how can a fertilized egg become an
>>>>adult individual "in the face of entropy"?

>>>no, I wouldn't wonder that. The mechanism is in place and we see it
>>>work every day.

>>And certainly another mechanism was in place for every nonspontaneous
>reaction
>>in the history of the planet.

>what was this other mechanism?

Well, evaporation is one option. Once you have membranes, you can set up solute
gradients. Or you can just use chemical reactions, in the manner that your body
dooes now. Combustion's actually a pretty simple reaction.

>>>>Or, how can I stay alive, or how
>>>>can my car work, or how can I tidy up my room, in the face of entropy?
>>>>Nobody in their senses would ask such a question.

>>>agreed. I am not asking THOSE questions.

>>You seem to be asking what method of thermionic coupling existed in the
>>earliest days of the planet. Am I correct?

>I am asking, is it reasonable to assume that in the presence of 2LoT,
>that negative free energy would be the cause for the organization and
>development of the genetic coding system, which gives evidence of
>reduction in entropy.

Yes.

>>snip>
>>
>>But you know that life on this planet predated animals by hundreds of
>millions
>>of years, right?

>not from my worldview or my premises.

And why do you disagree with the evolutionary model of the history of life?

<snip>

>>>no, I'm saying that the charged battery is an endergonic process, not
>>>that ATP is an endergonic process. I am saying that the same way the
>>>charging of a battery is an endergonic process, so is the creation of
>>>ATP from ADP an endergonic process. Am I still wrong?

>>Depends on how we score partial credit. Yes, synthesizing ATP from ADP and
>>phosphate is *in itself* a nonspontaneous process, but the pathways of
>cellular
>>respiration couple another reaction (the combustion of glucose and, in
>>eukaryotes, the subsequent harvesting of high-energy electrons), which is
>>spontaneous and certainly exergonic, in order to perform the synthesis.

>but this harvesting of high-energy electrons would not happen minus a
>mechanism that clearly operates on the basis of nonspontaneous
>processes.

No, every step in the electron transport chain is spontaneous.

>There would be no harvesting of high-energy electrons if
>the nonspontaneous system was not first in place, right?

Yes, the electron transport chain is needed to harvest those electrons, but
simpler organisms such as bacteria get by with glycolysis alone--those
combustion reactions as possible early pathways I mentioned.

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 31, 2001, 12:52:51 PM5/31/01
to
On 29 May 2001 13:51:33 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
wrote:

>
>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:3b139472...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>> On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>


>> wrote:
>>
>> positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>> rock up a hill. If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>> this means that there was a "rock pusher" around. The sun is not a
>> rock pusher, is it?
>

>Let's clarify some points that are blurred in your posts.
>
>1. A spontaneous reaction has a negative delta G , in other words it
>proceeds with a decrease of free energy. A non-spontaneous reaction has a
>positive delta G. A non-spontaneous reaction can be coupled with a
>spontaneous one and therefore made thermodynamically feasible.
>
>2. Plants can use the energy of the sun to synthesize all their
>macromolecules from CO2. This is called photosynthesis.

of course, without a system in place, sunlight would not cause
photosynthesis to occur in chemicals lying loosely about, would it?

>Then the cows eat
>the plants,

sounds non-spontaneous here, to me.

> synthesizing their own macromolecules from the energy and the
>carbon sources in the plant.

would you consider the movement of ions into a compartment against its
concentration gradient to be spontaneous?

> Then we eat the cows

non-spontaneous activity, not dependent on sunlight to occur.

>and get the energy we
>need, plus a number of building blocks for our own macromolecules.

The mechanisms in both the mitochonrion and the chloroplast allow for
the non-spontaneous action of hydrogen ions being pumped into one of
two compartments against their concentration gradients. The system
appears to have a mechanism that harnesses energy from electrons in a
manner that would not occur outside of the system, regardless of how
much sunshine beats down upon the chemicals. Is this correct or not?

And are you classifying all of the above actions as non-spontaneous or
spontaneous, Leo?


--
zoe

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 31, 2001, 1:51:29 PM5/31/01
to
From Zoe Althrop:

>On 29 May 2001 13:51:33 -0400, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3b139472...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
>>> On 28 May 2001 18:32:06 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>>> rock up a hill. If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>>> this means that there was a "rock pusher" around. The sun is not a
>>> rock pusher, is it?
>>
>>Let's clarify some points that are blurred in your posts.
>>
>>1. A spontaneous reaction has a negative delta G , in other words it
>>proceeds with a decrease of free energy. A non-spontaneous reaction has a
>>positive delta G. A non-spontaneous reaction can be coupled with a
>>spontaneous one and therefore made thermodynamically feasible.
>>
>>2. Plants can use the energy of the sun to synthesize all their
>>macromolecules from CO2. This is called photosynthesis.
>
>of course, without a system in place, sunlight would not cause
>photosynthesis to occur in chemicals lying loosely about, would it?

Not photosynthesis in the modern sense, but photon absorption does kick
electrons into higher orbits, and it's very interesting to see what chemical
reactions are the result.

>>Then the cows eat
>>the plants,

>sounds non-spontaneous here, to me.

What part of cows eating plants has a positive deltaG? And you will have to
support this with math, I'm afraid.

>> synthesizing their own macromolecules from the energy and the
>>carbon sources in the plant.

>would you consider the movement of ions into a compartment against its
>concentration gradient to be spontaneous?

No, but the ATP contributing energy to the transport protein that makes this
movement possible certainly is.

>> Then we eat the cows

>non-spontaneous activity,

What part?

>not dependent on sunlight to occur.

Yes it does. Without sunlight there would be no cows.

>>and get the energy we
>>need, plus a number of building blocks for our own macromolecules.

>The mechanisms in both the mitochonrion and the chloroplast allow for
>the non-spontaneous action of hydrogen ions being pumped into one of
>two compartments against their concentration gradients.

Actually, I thought that was just a function of what proteins are embedded
where.

>The system
>appears to have a mechanism that harnesses energy from electrons in a
>manner that would not occur outside of the system, regardless of how
>much sunshine beats down upon the chemicals. Is this correct or not?

I'd have to go with *not*. It's no difficult matter to harness energy from the
sun on the electron level.

>And are you classifying all of the above actions as non-spontaneous or
>spontaneous, Leo?

Does it matter, if they're coupled properly?

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 31, 2001, 1:51:12 PM5/31/01
to
On 29 May 2001 11:42:17 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
wrote:

>zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):


>
>>positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
>>rock up a hill. If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
>>this means that there was a "rock pusher" around. The sun is not a
>>rock pusher, is it?
>

>The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
>vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
>falls back to earth as well.
>

I believe you're describing a spontaneous reaction to sunlight here.
I am referring to non-spontaneous reactions such as chemiosmosis, or
the arbitrary act of eating in order to supply energy to a system, or
the conversion of ADP to ATP, via the mitochondrial mechanism.

--
zoe

zoe_althrop

unread,
May 31, 2001, 1:56:35 PM5/31/01
to
On 29 May 2001 12:21:59 -0400, "Derek Stevenson"
<dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

snip>
>
>Why do you think "origins" involved a different set of processes than
>reproduction today?
>

for the same reason that you invoke your singularities -- it has
explanatory power.

snip>
>
>The SLOT has, as far as we can determine, been in effect for as long as the
>universe has existed. The earth is a more recent development. Life on earth
>is more recent still. Clearly, then, the SLOT precedes life.
>

you would notice that your conclusion was based upon a premise that
contains "as far as we can determine" within it.


>> > we know the SLOT was
>> >operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
>> >on stars older than the earth).
>>
>> I take it you've measured the effects of 2LoT out in the far reaches
>> of the universe? Or are you saying that you're extrapolating our 2LoT
>> (as evidenced in nuclear processes), out to the rest of the universe?
>
>Neither. It means that we've seen the effects of the SLOT, and have failed
>to see evidence of the SLOT *not* being in effect, everywhere we've looked.
>

is failure to see evidence evidence of evidence?


>> >so your argument fails even before its born. its nonsense.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >because they themselves increase entropy in the process of life. thats
>> >why we breathe. its why we crap. we are different. this variation in
>> >populations does not violate the SLOT.
>>
>> I am not saying that any of this violates the SLOT. Can you join me
>> on the same page, wf3h?
>
>And yet you're saying that the "origins" of life involved processes that
>*did* violate the SLOT.
>

no, I said that since SLOT cannot be violated, as we know it, then the
origins of life had to precede SLOT in order to occur.

>You've provided no reason why that should be the case, of course. You've
>just asserted that it must have been so.
>

I think I've been giving reasons why all along, not just asserting.
They're in other posts which I'm not inclined to repeat....since I'm
sleepy, as it is.....


--
zoe

Ken Cox

unread,
May 31, 2001, 2:03:17 PM5/31/01
to
zoe_althrop wrote:
> I believe you're describing a spontaneous reaction to sunlight here.
> I am referring to non-spontaneous reactions such as chemiosmosis, or
> the arbitrary act of eating in order to supply energy to a system, or
> the conversion of ADP to ATP, via the mitochondrial mechanism.

Osmosis and mitochondrial respiration are both spontaneous.
Eating is somewhat less so, but it's not exactly a chemical
reaction.

--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com

Derek Stevenson

unread,
May 31, 2001, 2:10:57 PM5/31/01
to
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b15ad6d...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

[snip]

> correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
> within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
> surface.

I should never be surprised by anything Zoe says, but somehow I always am.

"I don't think that chemical reactions within the body's cells are triggered
by sunlight striking the body surface."

This, from someone posting from Central Florida. In late May.

Zoe, you never cease to astonish.

Boikat

unread,
May 31, 2001, 2:19:21 PM5/31/01
to
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On 29 May 2001 11:42:17 -0400, _nan...@xs4all.nl (Nantko Schanssema)
> wrote:
>
> >zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop):
> >
> >>positive free energy is the type of energy that comes from pushing a
> >>rock up a hill. If there was plenty of positive free energy around,
> >>this means that there was a "rock pusher" around. The sun is not a
> >>rock pusher, is it?

Yes it is. Big time.

> >
> >The sun definitely pushes water up from the sea, in the form of water
> >vapor. I've been told that that water vapor sometimes condenses and
> >falls back to earth as well.
> >
>
> I believe you're describing a spontaneous reaction to sunlight here.

It's not "spontaneous", unless you are using a
private definition of "spontaneous".

> I am referring to non-spontaneous reactions such as chemiosmosis, or
> the arbitrary act of eating in order to supply energy to a system, or
> the conversion of ADP to ATP, via the mitochondrial mechanism.

What about them?

Boikat
>
> --
> zoe

Derek Stevenson

unread,
May 31, 2001, 2:26:06 PM5/31/01
to
"zoe_althrop" <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b15bce6...@news-server.cfl.rr.com...

> On 29 May 2001 12:21:59 -0400, "Derek Stevenson"
> <dstev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> >Why do you think "origins" involved a different set of processes than
> >reproduction today?
>
> for the same reason that you invoke your singularities -- it has
> explanatory power.

What "singularities"?

In any case, it's not enough for a theory to have "explanatory power" -- it
must also be consistent with the evidence at hand. This is why the Big Bang,
evolution et al. are so widely accepted: they explain the observations and
the evidence.

You're doing the exact opposite with your invocation of "origins" as Things
Science Was Not Meant To Know -- you invoke it precisely because your
favoured explanation does *not* conform to the evidence.

> >The SLOT has, as far as we can determine, been in effect for as long as
the
> >universe has existed. The earth is a more recent development. Life on
earth
> >is more recent still. Clearly, then, the SLOT precedes life.
>
> you would notice that your conclusion was based upon a premise that
> contains "as far as we can determine" within it.

Well spotted. Yes, we assume that when something has been observed to be the
case in every situation we have examined, that it is reasonable to assume
that it is also the case in those situations which we have not yet examined.
We assume that the fundamental laws of the universe do not change simply
because we are not looking.

So do you. At least, I assume you do not go to the trouble of conducting a
rigorous series of tests to verify that your bedroom floor is a solid
surface capable of supporting your weight before climbing out of bed every
morning.

> >> > we know the SLOT was
> >> >operational before the earth existed (we can measure nuclear processes
> >> >on stars older than the earth).
> >>
> >> I take it you've measured the effects of 2LoT out in the far reaches
> >> of the universe? Or are you saying that you're extrapolating our 2LoT
> >> (as evidenced in nuclear processes), out to the rest of the universe?
> >
> >Neither. It means that we've seen the effects of the SLOT, and have
failed
> >to see evidence of the SLOT *not* being in effect, everywhere we've
looked.
>
> is failure to see evidence evidence of evidence?

Failure to see evidence that something is different is generally considered
to be evidence that it remains the same, yes.

Curiously enough, I take the observation that my hair has not turned purple
overnight as evidence that my hair has not turned purple overnight. Maybe
I'm just funny that way.

> >> >because they themselves increase entropy in the process of life. thats
> >> >why we breathe. its why we crap. we are different. this variation in
> >> >populations does not violate the SLOT.
> >>
> >> I am not saying that any of this violates the SLOT. Can you join me
> >> on the same page, wf3h?
> >
> >And yet you're saying that the "origins" of life involved processes that
> >*did* violate the SLOT.
>
> no, I said that since SLOT cannot be violated, as we know it, then the
> origins of life had to precede SLOT in order to occur.

And why are you saying that the origins of life had to precede SLOT, if not
because the origins of life somehow violate it?

> >You've provided no reason why that should be the case, of course. You've
> >just asserted that it must have been so.
>
> I think I've been giving reasons why all along, not just asserting.
> They're in other posts which I'm not inclined to repeat....since I'm
> sleepy, as it is.....

"I just don't want it to be" is not a reason.

newbie

unread,
May 31, 2001, 3:59:19 PM5/31/01
to
In article <20010531124046...@ng-md1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
unbelievable.

Dave Horn

unread,
May 31, 2001, 4:08:49 PM5/31/01
to
"newbie" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:EnxR6.7481$rn5.3...@www.newsranger.com...

>
> In article <20010531124046...@ng-md1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
says...

[Snip]

> >>Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon.
>
> >Because he was making an existentially negative claim,
> >newbie.

Newbie must've been confused by the phrase "existentially negative."

> >>And even if he had demonstrated that humans
> >>have no instincts(which he has not),
>
> >Yes he has. I have seen no indication that humans have instinct,
> >which is excellent evidence for his claim.
>
> unbelievable.

And why is this "unbelievable?" Newbie doesn't say. In typical Newbie
fashion, a text-byte is supposed to be sufficient.

Can Newbie support that humans have instincts? Notice that he hasn't tried
throughout this thread. Instead, his responses have been typically
Newbiesque - evasive, petulant and juvenile.

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
May 31, 2001, 4:39:06 PM5/31/01
to

Zoe, can you give a description of how you determine whether a given
chemical reaction is spontaneous or non-spontaneous? Don't give us
an example, just tell us how we can make that determination ourselves.

Mark

>zoe

--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
May 31, 2001, 4:40:17 PM5/31/01
to
On 31 May 2001 11:21:08 -0400, zoe_althrop <zoe_a...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>surface.

*blink*

*blink blink*

Gyudon Z

unread,
May 31, 2001, 6:30:28 PM5/31/01
to
From newbie:

>In article <20010531124046...@ng-md1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>
>>From newbie:
>>
>>>In article <20010531030110...@ng-ch1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z says...
>>>>
>>>>From ol' noobs:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <20010530213936...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, Gyudon Z
>says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>From newbie:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <3b137959...@news.ptdprolog.net>, wf...@ptd.net says...
>>>>>>>>
<snip>

>>>>>>You expressed unwillingness to logically counter his claim (I wonder


>>>>>why...),
>>>>>>but very strongly implied that it was incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He indicated that humans do not have instincts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You seem to think that just because you did not mention humans seems to
>>>make
>>>>>>his point irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>>And his point is the one under consideration here, right?
>>>>
>>>>In a manner of speaking, yes. Your argument, "How did life "evolve"
>instinct
>>>>when instint would have been essential to survival before it evolved
>>>instinct."
>>>>supposes that instinct is essential to survival. wf3h demonstrated that
>for
>>>>one species it is not.
>>
>>>Wf3h *demonstrated* nothing, Gyudon.
>>Because he was making an existentially negative claim, newbie.
>>
>>>And even if he had demonstrated that
>>>humans
>>>have no instincts(which he has not),
>>
>>Yes he has. I have seen no indication that humans have instinct, which is
>>excellent evidence for his claim.

>unbelievable.

What is unbelievable is that you can say with such confidence that my claim is
unbelievable without providing any evidence of instinct among humans.

And I believe you snipped the rest of my post without either answering or even
marking the snip. Bad newbie. No face-saving for you.

Jon Fleming

unread,
May 31, 2001, 6:49:01 PM5/31/01
to
On 31 May 2001 11:21:08 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

>On 29 May 2001 18:47:17 -0400, Jon Fleming <jo...@fleming-nospam.com>
>wrote:
>snip>
>>
>>If yo want to define a "rock pusher" as something that transfers
>>positive free energy from one place to another, then, yes, the Sun is
>>a "rock pusher".
>>
>
>that is not how I am defining a "rock pusher." I am defining rock
>pushing as a change in free energy.

Then the sun is a rock pusher. It increases free energy.

> It requires energy from an
>outside source to causes a decrease in entropy

You don't understand thermodynamics. Entropy and free energy are not
the same. Entropy is a measure of the amount of NON-free energy.

>in the system upon
>which the work is being done. I don't think that sunlight would
>decrease entropy in a pool of chemicals if these chemicals lie outside
>of the type of system that channels energy and converts it into
>positive free energy.

No, it would not decrease the entropy of that sort of system. But it
would increase the free energy.

>
>correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that chemical reactions
>within the body's cells are triggered by sunlight striking the body
>surface.

OK, you're wrong. Vitamin D synthesis is triggered and powered by
sunlight.

>Chemical reactions within the body generally require heat in
>order to occur, yes, but they are catalyzed by ENZYMES in biological
>systems so that they can occur at ambient temperatures -- no need for
>sunlight here. This does not sound like spontaneous activity, to me.

I'll withhold comment until you define "spontaneous". Your messages
make it clear the you are using it in some unusual sense.


>
>
>>>
>>>>All the energy involved comes
>>>>from the Sun, directly or indirectly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>the sun as a source of energy is not in dispute here. The absorption
>>>or expenditure of this energy in a non-spontaneous fashion is what is
>>>on the table at the moment.
>>
>>Define "non-spontaneous".

You forgot to answer this question.

You forgot to answer this question.

>>
>
>the present existence of entropy and the present existence of natural
>mechanisms that reduce entropy in a system. The mechanisms that
>reduce entropy cannot themselves be a result of increased entropy.
>
>>>is not a
>>>mathematical one, but a logical one that arises from observation of
>>>the evidence of how 2LoT works and how the genetic coding system
>>>works.
>>
>>Then you should realize you have a very high probability of being
>>wrong. Unless you can do thermodynamic math, you're almost certain to
>>go astray trying to do thermodynamics.
>>
>
>I don't think I'm trying to "do" thermodynamics. I am trying to "do"
>logic in understanding how thermodynamics interacts with nature.

You can't do that without doing thermodynamics.

--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email

Jon Fleming

unread,
May 31, 2001, 6:53:12 PM5/31/01
to
On 31 May 2001 11:34:27 -0400, zoe_a...@hotmail.com (zoe_althrop)
wrote:

<snip>
>
>The testimony of reliable

You're going to have to justify your use of the word "reliable". What
evidence do you have that these witnesses were reliable? Did they
have any reasons for slanting their accounts, such as trying to
justify their choices, or trying to convince others of the correctness
of their choices?

>witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
>trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
>the existence of Jesus God.
>
>> But, I'll accept your
>>explanation that you were merely adopting the point of view of a
>>creationist when asking the above questions. You get to dodge the
>>challenge of the evidence of God, as you've probably dodged it
>>hundreds of times already.
>>
>
>is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses?

Lawyers and law enforcement professionals know that _all_ testimony is
the very worst kind of evidence. People are lousy witnesses.

--

dkomo

unread,
May 31, 2001, 6:53:26 PM5/31/01
to
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On 29 May 2001 11:05:29 -0400, dkomo <dkomo...@cris.com> wrote:
>

> I was hoping you would read that mention in context -- which was not
> one of trying to prove the existence of a hypothetical Supreme Being,
> but one of directing my question to creationists and meeting them on
> their own ground, just as my second question was directed to
> evolutionists and meeting them on their own ground. I didn't mean it
> to become the proverbial bull/red flag.
>
> >The "hypothetical" comes from the fact that no creditable
> >evidence has ever been found for the existence of such an entity. And
> >that's why I challenged you to present some.
>
> okay. Challenge accepted.
>
> The testimony of reliable witnesses over 2,000 years, passed from one
> trustworthy person to another, is the first creditable evidence for
> the existence of Jesus God.
>

Creditable witnesses? You mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? True
believers don't make very creditable witnesses because they have
hidden agendas. These guys were trying to found a new religion. They
cribbed off each other when they wrote their gospels. They were in
serious theological conflict with the Judaism of that era. It's
entirely probable they might have embellished their stories about
Christ. Especially the parts about the miracles, and being the son of
God, and rising from the dead.

Are you going to believe whatever any putative prophet writes down
regarding religion? How about Mohammed? Why is he any less
creditable a witness than the four apostles when he claims to have
heard directly from Allah all the things that eventually were written
down in the Koran? Or what about Do, the leader of the Heaven's Gate
cult that committed mass suicide, discarding their "containers" in the
belief that they would be taken aboard an alien spacecraft hiding
inside a comet? Why aren't Do and his followers credible witnessess?
Did they not absolutely believe that they were an "away team" for an
alien supercivilization?

Alas, the history of religion and true believers of all kinds is
replete with examples of total nuttiness. That's why citing writings
of these people is not any kind of reliable evidence.

>
> is there a reason why you refuse to believe reliable witnesses? Or
> has your doubting nature become so strong that at the merest mention
> of God, you respond with paranoia and suspicion of anybody, no matter
> how stable and centered such a person might be?
>

That such a large proportion of humanity believes fervently in the
existence of omnipotent imaginary beings makes me a bit paranoid,
yes. Religious belief has led to explosions of extreme repression and
violence many times in the past.



> >> In light of how 2LoT works, is it reasonable for anybody, of any
> >> philosophical persuasion whatsoever, to conclude that the genetic code
> >> arose AFTER 2LoT is in operation?
> >>
> >
> >There's *no* possibility that it could happened any other way. The
> >2Lot was already around at the moment the universe came into existence
> >in the Big Bang.
> >
>
> you know this is just an assertion, right?
>

Hardly. See below.

Sure. Listen carefully. You've heard of the cosmic microwave
background radiation have you not? This is all the evidence you need
that the 2Lot has been in operation since the time of the Big Bang.

Assume this wasn't the case. That means there would have been
instances of entropy *decreasing* globally throughout the universe due
to extremely improbable statistical fluctuations of the density of
matter during the earliest moments of the universe. That would have
shown up, at the very least, in sizeable and easily measured
inhomogeneities of the microwave radiation. Worse, it would have led
to a universe much less homogeneous than the one we see now. Probably
an unliveable universe filled with massive black holes the size of
entire galactic clusters interspersed with absolutely empty regions
billions of light years across.

Thank the 2Lot that we're even here to talk about it.


--dk...@cris.com

> --
> zoe

dkomo

unread,
May 31, 2001, 7:10:57 PM5/31/01
to
dkomo wrote:
>
>
> Thank the 2Lot that we're even here to talk about it.
>

Here's a slightly better quip:

"The 2Lot. Not just a good idea. It's the LAW!"

(First saw this on a bumper sticker with the speed of light in place
of the 2Lot).


--dk...@ris.com

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages