On Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:23:59 PST8PDT, Paul Brown wrote:
PB>The assumption of several on this list seems to be that no valid
>concern exists regarding the laws of thermodynamics and life. I have
>seen numerous posts here and elsewhere concerning thermodynamics and
>popular conceptions of how the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in
>particular, are mis-applied to the creation/evolution debate.
Agreed. This is Del Ratzsch's point in his chapter "Creationist
Theory: Popular Evolutionist Misunderstandings":
"Perhaps the most prevalent of the misconstruals of creationism
involves the Second Law of Thermodynamics...Creationists nearly
unanimously claim that this Second Law poses a nasty problem for
evolution. Unfortunately, exactly what creationists have in mind
here is widely misunderstood. Creationists are at least partly at
fault for that confusion. One reason is that as noted earlier
(chapter six), most popular creationists use the term evolution
ambiguously-sometimes to refer to the cosmic evolutionary worldview
(or model) and sometimes to refer to the Darwinian biological
theory...when claiming that the Second Law flatly precludes
evolution, major creationists almost invariably have in mind
evolution in the overall cosmic, "evolution model" sense...What
Morris and others mean to be claiming is that any such view according
to which the entire cosmos is itself in a process of increasing
overall order is in violation of the Second Law." (Ratzsch D.L.,
"The Battle of Beginnings", 1996, pp91-92)
PB>Creationists often do use poor arguments in this area, but I think
>I agree more with Steve Jones on this. As far as I can tell,
>thermodynamics does present a problem for chemical evolution.
Thanks for your support. Agreed that "thermodynamics does present a
problem for chemical evolution". Indeed it "presents a problem" for
any "evolution" before there are living systems which have the energy
conversion systems and coded programs that can convert raw energy
into organised complexity. In particular "thermodynamics does
present a problem for" "evolution" as a universal principle,
involving all reality:
"All reality, in fact, is evolution, in the perfectly proper sense
that it is a one-way process in time, unitary; continuous;
irreversible; self-transforming; and generating variety and novelty
during its transformations." (Huxley J., "Evolution in Action",
1963, p12)
At this highest universal level, the very opposite to "evolution" is
represented by the second law of thermodynamics in which the true
"one-way process in time, unitary; continuous; irreversible" is
*self-destructing*, not "self-transforming".
Evolutionists must claim evolution operates at this highest level if
evolution is to function for them as a substitute for God. But the
second law denies them evolution as an explanatory principle at this
highest level. That's why evolutionists must shift the argument down
to lower levels.
With this in mind, I have written a little piece as an introduction,
>and would like your feedback. I have found that the symbols don't
>transfer to e-mail, so have tried to do the best I can. D = delta.
>If most people have MS-word or something, I could send this as an
>attachment.
>PB>...The laws of thermodynamics are concerned with how energy and
>matter behave, and I believe the first and third laws help us
>understand why the second law is a problem for those wishing an
>entirely naturalistic (theistic evolution) or materialistic
>(atheistic evolution) explanation of origins. The primary point of
>application, I believe, concerns the chemical origin of life.
Thanks Paul, but could you elaborate on this, if possible?
>PB>Other questions.
>The second question we must ask ourselves is: what are the
>conditions that must be met for living systems to arise as related to
>thermodynamics? The energy state of much of the chemistry of life,
>as measured by the energy contained in the chemical bonds, is greater
>than the energy state of the constituents (or, reactants) from which
>it is formed. Additionally, the organizational state is one of
>reduced entropy. Living systems require both the input of energy and
>the simultaneous reduction of entropy. Thus, considering our earlier
>statement concerning spontaneous chemical reactions, the questions
>arise: how can living systems accomplish this task, and how might
>they spontaneously originate?
This is "thermodynamics" problem for origin of life is analysed
brilliantly in Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen's "The Mystery of Life's
Origin":
"There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in
synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize
protein and DNA. We believe the reason is the large difference in the
magnitude of the configurational entropy work required. Amino acids
are quite simple compared to protein, and one might reasonably
expect to get some yield of amino acids, even where the chemical
reactions that occur do so in a rather random fashion. The same
approach will obviously be far less successful in reproducing complex
protein and DNA molecules where the configurational entropy work
term is a nontrivial portion of the whole. Coupling the energy flow
through the system to do the chemical and thermal entropy work is
much easier than doing the configurational entropy work The uniform
failure in literally thousands of experimental attempts to synthesize
protein or DNA under even questionable prebiotic conditions is a
monument to the difficulty in achieving a high degree of information
content, or specified complexity from the undirected flow of energy
through a system...Either the work - especially, the organizational
work - was coupled to the flow of energy in some way not yet
understood, or else it truly was a miracle." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley
W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin", 1992, p164)
>PB>To emphasize three important points, when considering the
>spontaneous origin of life (just considering thermodynamics and not
>other concerns), we must understand the relationship between energy,
>entropy, and spontaneity. How is this so far? Any disagreements?
>Clarifications? Editorial comments? I have actually been writing a
>piece to post in another location, and so I would appreciate
>comments, especially from those who are familiar with these concepts.
No "disagreements" but I would like some "Clarifications"! What
exactly *is* "the relationship between energy, entropy, and
spontaneity"?
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------