> Aine Wrote:
> > What violation? See Gibbs free energy, not
> > negative entropy.
> It's hard to get too serious about such things,
> but it's fun to muse about them, and it brings me
> back to my hippy days...
> Where does that enthalpy come from? The Sun? Where
> did the Sun get its energy? Someone or something
> had to load the gun in the first place. Gibbs
> energy only exists because the energy initially
> was inserted into the system, right? So where does
> the energy come from and how was it able to defeat
> the entropic tendency?
That's a question for Jonny, but the amount of energy in the universe is constant. The sun generates heat via nuclear reactions, which radiates to Earth. Plants and bacteria utilize the photons for photosynthesis, and so on up the food chain.
> > The second law describes closed systems. Living
> > organisms are open systems. The Earth itself is
> > open system. Also, evolutionary processes take
> > place over very long periods of time. Show me
> > equation that demonstrates that living
> > are in violation of any of the laws of
> > thermodynamics.
> "Closed" and "open" systems are relative to the
> context at hand. And in a sense there is no truly
> closed system as long as it exists with other
> 'systems' in the same universe. I know of no known
> principle that allows any such "closed" systems to
> be guaranteed separation from any other system
> vis a vis the laws of physics. The notion
> of a truly "closed system" strikes me more as a
> thought experiment than anything real we can point
> It's not even clear to me that the universe as we
> know it, as a singular closed system truly follows
> the law of entropy. While it's possible for one to
> argue that the Big Bang is time zero on the
> entropy clock, one could also argue that the Big
> Bang is the second half of a Big Oscillation which
> includes a Big Implosion phase too, and once the
> universe compacts back to infinitesimally small as
> a result of the Big Implosion phase, it may then
> expand again with another Big Bang, etc., etc., so
> we do not know whether the 2nd law actually does
> apply to anything other than the current state of
> the universe.
Correct. But all we're concerned with is the current state of the universe.
But you still haven't demonstrated how any of this violates the laws. You're questioning the laws themselves.
> Likewise for the timescale of the energy exchange.
> Living systems represent an eddy current of a net
> acquisition of energy and organization in an
> apparent violation of the 2nd Law.
You can create
> a "closed" system by including the entire solar
> system. Sure, eventually each living organism will
> succumb to the 2nd law, but they violate that law
> during their acquisition phase, and they do so
> quite consistently in an effort to preserve the
> I'd like to see the equation that plausibly
> explains how
> his can slowly develop through random
> coincidence in the midst of the laws of
> thermodynamics and statistical probability.
> > Also, if the 2nd law was violated, we'd never
> > old and we'd never die.
> I certainly don't claim that the violation of the
> 2nd law is permanent for a given organism. But the
> law does continue to be violated as the
> population continues to expand. How
> is it possible for Nature to expend that energy,
> and why is it advantageous for Nature to do so?
That's easy. There's no better way to expend that energy than by reproducing.
> > Organisms live at
> > near-maximum thermodynamic efficiency (some
> > so than others), but in the end, there is no
> > violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
> Again, "in the end" is a catch-all way to
> reconcile the law, but it doesn't account for the
> short-term and consistent reversal in entropy
> during the lifetime of a species, genus, or
> phylum, etc. Simply put, DNA is designed from the
> bottom up to counter entropy long after its
> procreative processes have been spent.
Why do you think DNA is some kind of designer drug? It's a nucleic acid, not some mystery substance.
> species have been doing that for many millions of
> years. How is that the result of random mass and
> energy interactions? The video in the above link
> mainly depicts the high order coiling of DNA after
> it's been replicated. Very little is available
> regarding the physical process of replication, and
> I suspect that's because the unzipping a 6 mile
> length of rope that's been completely reduced to a
> 6-degree coil is basically impossible to
> comprehend, let alone explain.
Actually, just in the last week or two there was something about capturing DNA in the act of replicating. I'll see if I can find it.
> > And there is now evidence that life itself is
> > unavoidable product of the laws of
> > It's good stuff and they are in the process of
> > testing it.
> Not so much "unavoidable" as much as "easily
> accommodated". The study is based on computer
> modeling which means many assumptions are made
> regarding the principles at play. It's reminiscent
> of Sydney Fox' primordial ooze which generated
> organic molecules when charged with an electric
> On the other hand, if you're suggesting that life
> (and the negative entropy it produces) is simply a
> short-term phase in the dissipation of energy from
> the Sun, I certainly would allow that possibility.
> But it's far less clear that the dissipation of
> solar energy can accidentally produce DNA's
> resilience, redundancy, self-repair,
> self-reproduction, and widespread occurrence on
> the surface of the planet, let alone the 6-degree
> helical windings and unzipping that's presented in
> the above youtube link.
Who said the dun caused it? That's really stretching things a bit, don't you think?
Has it occured to you that perhaps DNA itself evolved, and the relationship between RNA, DNA and proteins co-evolved? I doubt very much that DNA was the first agent of heredity.
> > Against the odds complexity? I knew we'd get
> > that eventually. However, what are the odds of
> > supernatural creator (and make no mistake,
> > what ID is about) actually existing?
> Why categorize it as "supernatural"? What do we
> think we know that allows us to make such a claim?
> I prefer "super-unknowable" which seems far more
> likely, considering the limits of those 3 pounds
> of water, fat, and protein that we depend on
> between our ears to contemplate such vast things.
Whatever you want to call it, then. What makes it more likely than the alternative?
> > Now, against the odds doesn't mean impossible
> > (because the probability never reaches zero).
> > me the math that states that a supernatural
> > is more possible than not.
> You're currect that it's a statistical argument,
> and the odds are infinitesimally tiny. I base that
> assessment on the 2nd Law, our inability to
> adequately define life, our inability to find life
> (so far) anywhere else than the few mile thick
> surface of our own planet, and the fact that life
> exists at all.
Here's another possibility: life is an immutable property of the universe. And another: the universe itself is evolving, and life is simply the next step.
> > > As was previously mentioned, if a non-random
> > > 'intelligence' is responsible for setting up
> > > design, what created that 'intelligence'?
> > Passing the buck fallacy. It fails to apply the
> > same rules to the problem when it comes to God.
> > And then you're back to infinite regression.
> > In short, it solves nothing.
> Not sure what you mean by that. It's not passing
> the buck, it's allowing the logical reiterative
> paradigm to those who believe the universe is
> indeed infinite. Almost by definition, it's
> passing the buck to claim that the universe is
> infinite in space and time.
I didn't claim that space and time are infinite.
It's passing the buck to claim (as IDers and creationists do) that life on Earth MUST have been created, but God is subject to special rules exempting him from that question, and wasn't designed or created. It's more special pleading, but passing the buck does apply.
> What rules apply to God? And if God
> is "intelligent", where did that intelligence come
> from? Is God getting smarter? Is God subject to
> the laws of thermodynamics? Does God follow the
> laws of statistics?
Wouldn't we all love to know that. LOL In If he designed and created it, why wouldn't he be subject to it himself?
The problem with ID is that it doesn't set out any rules or parameters for their as yet nameless intelligent designer. Even magic has clearly delineated limitations.
> If the laws of physics don't apply to God,
> how do we account for God!
And therein lies the rub!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03-Jan-18 01:49 by Aine.