> I don't have all the answers either and I'm not a
> physicist. BUT...I don't understand how you come
> to the conclusion that DNA dumps more energy into
> the system. When the double strand is formed, heat
> is released as per Law 2. The heat released
> increases the entropy in the universe more than
> the decrease in the system.
It takes a tremendous amount of energy to create the nucleic acid strands (the enzymes don't work for free), and DNA clearly has a highly organized structure. The energy infusion and complex organization both violate the 2nd Law.
> Metabolism produces excess heat and excretion of
> high entropy packets. So we maintain our low
> entropy state through dumping high energy waste
> products into our environment.
Metabolism presumes a living organism; creating that organism required quite a bit of energy infusion and organization into the system. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to eat more than we burn as excess heat, and we'd just look like a giant living blob without all that tissue organization.
> As for DNA precursors, I'm sure you're familiar
> with the RNA World hypothesis? The interplay
> between DNA, RNA and proteins pretty much
> guarantees that life didn't start out using those
> three macromolecules, but started out based on a
> simpler, less complex system, one that was
> probably based on nucleotides. RNA can do all that
> DNA can and more--but DNA is more stable.
Such speculation is possible, but since it hasn't been verified it can't displace other hypotheses or neutralize the 2nd Law Violation contention.
> There's no evidence that the universe was created
> by an intelligent designer, but some people seem
> to accept that wholeheartedly.
For that matter, there's no evidence the universe was created by random events either.
> It's probably more like the Big Inflation, but I
> don't see any evidence that the universe is in
> contraction mode. If it's contracting, how do you
> explain Hubble's red shifts? How do you explain
> the fact that every galaxy, with the exception of
> a few close to us, are moving away from us. And
> they're not just moving away. The further away
> they are, the faster they're moving.
> How do you explain that?
That could be an artifact of a non-linear spacetime grid and/or the dynamic of decreasing energy precipitating into an increase in mass in the universe as the current "Big Oscillation" cycle progresses. Or it might still be expanding. Either way it's not testable, and isn't that relevant to the main point here.
> But it's not in defiance of the laws. That being
> said, it's not pure coincidence, either. The stuff
> of life is chemistry and physics. See RNA World
> above. Every interaction and evolution of pre-RNA
> World into DNA follows the laws of chemistry and
> physics. There's no getting around that.
And the process requires the infusion of energy and order. Ergo, 2nd Law violation.
> The negentropy (negative entropy) in a biological
> context keeps the entropy of the organism low. As
> Brillouin says, a living system imports negentropy
> and stores it. Put another way, the order created
> by life as it undergoes metabolism (cell division,
> etc.) is more than compensated for in the heat
> (entropy) it releases.
I didn't get that. the entropy of a living organism may not exceed the amount of energy the organism consumes at any point in time. Otherwise, the organism is no longer living.
> Don't forget, entropy can
> only increase or remain constant, never decrease.
> Organisms take in free energy in the form of
> nutrients (calories) or sunlight, and they return
> an equal amount of heat and therefore entropy.
I think I need to disagree with that. Much of the energy we consume is not dissipated as entropy. It is put to useful work.
> Your dilemma is ultimately resolved by Nobel Peace
> Prize winning theoretical chemist John Scales
> Avery, who says that the paradox is resolved "in
> the information content of the Gibbs free energy
> that enters the biosphere from outside sources."
> (Information Theory and Evolution, 2012).
The point is it's energy that's infused to the system, regardless where it comes from.
> > That's news to me. What are the clearly delineated
> > limitations of magic?
> I was being sarcastic.
Hilarious. OK, sorry!
> > Requiring rules or parameters for the intelligent
> > designer but not for God is a double standard.
> Ah, but ultimately, the designer is God. The ID
> crowd just won't come out and say it.
Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.
We only know of intelligence that arrises out of carbon-based living organisms. We have no idea if there might be non-carbon intelligence, or even non-corporal intelligence. We barely know what's going on in our own solar system, let alone other solar systems, other galaxies, or other 'verses. I think it's way too premature to presume where it all came from. My comments about the origin of intelligent life on Earth doesn't apply to other arguable forms of intelligence. I am only commenting on the notion that carbon-based DNA-driven intelligent lifeforms on Earth developed purely out of coincidence resulting from a long string of random events strikes me as highly implausible compared to the ID model.
> Okay, but if God created the complexity that is
> the universe, how complex must he be himself?
> Surely nothing that complex could come about by
> random coincidence. Therefore, he must have been
It's already far too difficult to fathom infinity let alone a logical infinite God who/that created the universe.
> > I may be wrong and may eventually come around, but
> > I don't see a way to that path any time soon. The
> > process is too enormous with profound consequences
> > to handwave it all to an unidentified deity
> > without understanding what's entailed in that process.
> And that's just it. They haven't identified the
> designer. That's one of the shortcomings from a
> scientific standpoint.
At least it's an approach to determine what actually happened. Attributed it to "God" is just a lazy way to say it's such an enormous undertaking that we can never understand and therefore must have been the work of a diety. As if the humble 3 pounds of goop between our ears was ever designed to comprehend such things at all.
> > And by the way, this is not about whether you or I
> > "believe in God". It's about what specific aspects
> > of the universe are attributed to God. The claim
> > that God just decided to create it all one day is
> > extremely defeatist, and I believe it cuts short
> > the true beauty and richness of the universe.
> I get it, no offense taken.
By the way, how do you pronounce your name? Is it eye-neh?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?