> Aine Wrote:
> > I don't have all the answers either and I'm not
> > physicist. BUT...I don't understand how you
> > to the conclusion that DNA dumps more energy
> > the system. When the double strand is formed,
> > 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.
No, they don't. DNA's complex structure was bought and paid for by every reaction that occurred to make it possible. Every single chemical reaction in the process of DNA synthesis is in accordance with law 2. Every. Single. One.
> 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
Whoo hoo, Law 1. Well, if organisms violated Law 2, we'd all die a very painful heat death.
> 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
> > by an intelligent designer, but some people
> > to accept that wholeheartedly.
> For that matter, there's no evidence the universe
> was created by random events either.
Once again, show me the math. If you can't do that, then I don't know what to tell you.
> 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.
Okay, now you're grasping.
> And the process requires the infusion of energy
> and order. Ergo, 2nd Law violation.
> 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.
Well, if you have a problem with that, take it up with the biochemists who are way smarter than either of us. That's what I was taught in biochemistry. I'm surprised you weren't.
> > Don't forget, entropy can
> > only increase or remain constant, never
> > Organisms take in free energy in the form of
> > nutrients (calories) or sunlight, and they
> > 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
> > Prize winning theoretical chemist John Scales
> > Avery, who says that the paradox is resolved
> > the information content of the Gibbs free
> > that enters the biosphere from outside
> > (Information Theory and Evolution, 2012).
> The point is it's energy that's infused to the
> system, regardless where it comes from.
The point is that you're WRONG. If you have a problem with that, then disprove it experimentally. Don't sit here and say the same incorrect thing over and over and over again. Show them they're wrong.
> 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
I don't know if we can NEVER understand it. We simply don't have the tools or technology to do it as yet.
> Thanks, Aine.
> By the way, how do you pronounce your name? Is it