DNAunion: Another long post that will not work under AOL. This is PART 1.
>>>Ccogan: No. I'm not implying that that one fact validates evolution. I'm
pointing out that matter has nothing against being organized in complex ways.
>>> DNAunion: Actually it does: entropy. (Yes, localized decreases in entropy
are possible, but only at the expense of equal or greater increases in
entropy elsewhere: and the general rule is that the randomness and disorder
of a system tends to increase naturally). The problem with your statement is
that you incorrectly state that "matter has *nothing* against being organized
in complex ways." This is wrong.
>>>FMAJ: Nothing in the SLOT prevents matter becoming more organized.
>>>DNAunion: Well, except for the natural tendency of systems to go from
states of order to states of greater disorder. Matter *does* have something
that works against its being organized in complex ways. Of course, entropy
can be "circumvented" - the flow of matter and/or energy through a system can
generate local increases in order, for example, but that does not mean that
matter has *nothing* working against its becoming organized in complex ways.
>>>David Bowman: […] It's hard to make sense of DNAunion's claims and
concessions in his last quote above. It appears that he is claiming that
matter has a tendency to prevent its organization except when it doesn't.
***************************
DNAunion: I made no "concessions". I am stating, consistently, that there
*is* something that works against matter's being organized in complex ways
(contrary to FMAJ's assertion that there is *nothing* that does so). I am
*not* stating that increases in order/organization cannot occur in nature.
Can you grasp the distinction?
Since this board deals with biological issues, biological thought experiments
are most appropriate.
Take a human being (which by a reductionist view is just atoms and molecules
organized in complex ways) and "mix it up in a blender", then pour the "goo"
out onto the table. Will the matter once again become organized in a complex
way, reforming a human? No. Will an organized and complex reproductive
system form? No. Will a kidney form? No. Will a heart form? No. Will a
bone form? No. Will a brain form? No. Will *any* organized and complex
biological multicelled structure form? No. Will *any* cell form? No.
There must be something that prevents the matter from regaining is original
organized, complex arrangement; or indeed, any biologically meaningful
organized and complex arrangement.
One could view this tendency towards disorder statistically by saying that
there are many more ways for the atoms to be arranged randomly and
disorderly, than there are for them to be arranged in an organized and
complex manner.
[quote]"The entropy also has an interpretation in terms of the microscopic
view of the thermal system: it is a measure of disorder in the system, and
all the ramifications of the second law can be derived by treating entropy as
disorder. The entropy is thus closely linked to statistical ideas." (Modern
Physics, Jeremy Bernstein, Paul M. Fishbane, & Stephen Gasiorowicz, Prentice
Hall, 2000, p20)[/quote]
[quote]"One of the most useful definitions of entropy arises from statistical
considerations. From the statistical point of view, an increase in the
entropy of a system (the substance or substances under consideration)
represents an increase in its disorder or randomness. … The natural tendency
of the universe lies in the direction of greater disorder. Another statement
of the second law is this: in any spontaneous process the entropy of the
universe increases." (Biochemistry, Mary K Campbell, Saunders College
Publishing, 1991, p155)[/quote]
The same kind of thought experiment I presented above yields the same results
for a bacterium, or even individual biological informational macromolecules,
like DNA polymerase or rRNA. There is *something* that opposes the
organization of these instances of matter in complex ways: entropy.
This can also be seen by looking at amino acids and proteins. Place amino
acids into water. Will they polymerize into polypeptides? No. Place the
amino acids on your kitchen table. Will they polymerize into polypeptides?
No. Place the amino acids on a sterile surface. Will they polymerize into
polypeptides? No. Then there must be something opposing this increase in
order. It is entropy, as the polymerization of individual amino acids into a
polypeptide results in a reduction in the disorder and randomness, and
degrees of freedom, of the system. Okay, now let's start from the other end.
Place protein - say DNA polymerase again - into water or on a surface and
leave it alone. Will it remain ordered? No. Over time it will decompose -
become more disordered - spontaneously. This is its natural tendency,
according to entropy. So in these examples, matter by itself would not
become more ordered, and if it started highly-ordered, it would lose its
order over time. Now, if you supply energy to the system - heating the amino
acid solution as Sidney Fox did- then the amino acids will have the ability
to polymerize into proteinoid. (As I said, the flow of energy and/or matter
through a system *can* produce localized increases in order, "overcoming" the
natural tendency of matter towards greater disorder).
[quote]"This is a general reaction describing the dehydration-condensation
of, for instance, proteins from amino acids, polysaccharides from sugars, and
nucleic acids from mononucleotides (whose constituents are pentoses, bases,
and phosphates). These biosynthetic reactions result in a decrease in
entropy. For example, when amino acids are linked to produce a peptide, they
lose much of their freedom of movement in the solution. The formation of a
peptide, a rather rigid and ordered molecule, imposes restrictions on the
free movements of its building blocks. These restrictions are associated
with an increase in the order of the system or a decrease in entropy." (Noam
Lahav, Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins, Oxford University Press, 1999,
p90)[/quote]
Here's another thought experiment that backs up my position. Have a human
stop eating. With no further input of matter and energy into the body from
the outside, the flow of matter and energy inside the body - through the
system - eventually ceases and the human - the cells that comprise its
muscles, heart, brain, etc. - begins to decompose. This is the natural
tendency of organized biological systems: to become less ordered
spontaneously (equivalent to an increase in entropy). This tendency to
become more disordered must be continually overcome in order for life to
exist, develop, and evolve. Take away the source of the "overcoming" and the
system follows its natural tendency of becoming less ordered and more random
(entropy increases).
In order for life to exist at all, it must actively maintain itself far above
thermodynamic equilibrium. (I believe even David Bowman later states that
entropy increases until thermodynamic equilibrium is reached). Thus,
biochemistry's (life's) natural tendency is to reach thermodynamic
equilibrium, but if it ever does, life ceases. There is something that
opposes matter's being organized in the complex ways associated with life.
Now, as far as "my" use of the term entropy as a measure of the disorder or
randomness of a system, here are a few supporting quotes (I already posted
several, and I have more that I will not post as it would be overkill). Note
that my references range from bioenergetics, to biochemistry, to physics.
[quote]"Entropy is a measure of disorder or randomness. … The rigorous
definition of entropy actually involves counting or calculating the number of
possible rearrangements of the microscopic quantum-mechanical properties of
the elementary constituents of a physical system that do not affect its gross
macroscopic properties (such as its energy or pressure). The details are not
essential so long as you realize that entropy is a fully quantitative
quantum-mechanical concept that precisely measures the overall disorder of a
physical system." (The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions,
and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, Brian Greene, W. W. Norton & Company,
1999, p333-334)[/quote]
This last one seems to address David Bowman's usage (if I am not mistaken).
If so, note that Brian Greene says that all the details are not essential to
an understanding, and that my usage is valid.
[quote]"Entropy: A measure of the amount of disorder in the Universe, or the
availability of energy to do work. As energy is degraded into heat, it is
less able to do work, and the amount of disorder in the Universe increases.
This corresponds to an increase in entropy. In a closed system, entropy
never decreases, so the Universe as a whole is slowly dying. In an open
system, (for example, a growing flower), entropy can decrease and order can
increase, but only at the expense of a decrease in order and an increase in
entropy somewhere else (in this case, in the Sun, which is supplying the
energy that the plant feeds off)." (Q is for Quantum: An Encyclopedia of
Particle Physics, John Gribbin, Free Press, 1998, p126)[/quote]
[quote]"… whenever a process occurs in nature, the randomness or disorder of
the universe (that is, the entropy of the universe) invariably increases.
This is one of two alternative ways to state the second law of
thermodynamics. … To understand how the entropy of the universe can increase
during a process while the entropy of the system decreases, we need only
realize that the decrease in entropy of the system can be accompanied by an
equal or greater increase in the entropy of the surroundings. On the basis of
the second law, such local increases in order (decreases in entropy) must be
offset by an even greater decrease in the order (increase in entropy) of the
surroundings." (The World of the Cell: Third Edition, Wayne M. Becker, Jane
B. Reece, and Martin F. Poenie, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1996, p
123 - 124) [/quote]
[quote]"Entropy S is a measure of the degree of randomness or disorder of a
system. Entropy increases as a system becomes more disordered and decreases
as a system becomes more structured. … To see this, suppose that a 1.0 M
solution of glucose is separated from a large volume of water by a membrane
through which glucose can diffuse. Diffusion of glucose molecules across the
membrane will give them more room in which to move, with the result that the
randomness, or entropy, of the system is increased. Maximum entropy is
achieved when all molecules can diffuse freely over the largest possible
volume - that is, when the concentration of glucose molecules is the same on
both sides of the membrane. … Many biological reactions lead to an increase
in order, and thus a decrease in entropy ([change in]S < 0). An obvious
example is the reaction that links amino acids together to form a protein. A
solution of protein molecules has a lower entropy than does a solution of the
same amino acids unlinked, because the free movement of any amino acid in a
protein is restricted when it is bound in a long chain. For the linking
reaction to proceed, a compensatory decrease in free energy must occur
elsewhere in the system, as is discussed in Chapter 4." (Harvey Lodish,
Arnold Berk, S. Lawrence Zipursky, Paul Matsudaira, David Baltimore, & James
Darnell, Molecular Cell Biology: Fourth Edition, W. H. Freeman & Co., 2000,
p37)[/quote]
***************************
>>>David Bowman: How much real content does such a claim [as DNAunion's]
really possess?
**************************
DNAunion: Only to be true - did anyone expect more?
**************************
>>>David Bowman: Real laws of nature are not so vacuous.
**************************
DNAunion: Please re-examine all of my statements, but this time without the
bias you impose on them (as is seen in the latter part of your post).
**************************
>>>David Bowman: […]
Q3: Does matter have anything against being organized in complex ways?
A3: In general, no.
*************************
DNAunion: Then, (1) why do proteins decompose spontaneously into their
constituent amino acids? (2) Why don't amino acids spontaneously assemble
into polypeptides? (3) Why does life have to continually struggle against
entropy, necessarily maintaining itself far above thermodynamic equilibrium?
(4) Why do cells need enzymes to form glucose from monosaccharides, that is,
why don't the monomers just link together spontaneously? (5) Why don't
phospholipid bilayers form spontaneously - an increase in order - except in
aqueous solutions? (6) Why do nucleic acids decompose spontaneously, and why
don't nucleotides just polymerize themselves spontaneously into genomes? Etc.
This is all biological entities and entropy, but what about generalizing this
to other forms of matter and on grander scales.
Take the individual components of a 4-stroke, reciprocating internal
combustion engine - pistons, valves, spark plugs, etc. - and lay them out on
the table. Will they become organized in complex ways to form an engine, or
any other functional machine? No. Then is there not something preventing
this? Yes. Okay, let's go further. Supply undirected energy to the system.
You can place all the components into a chamber and increase the heat as
high as you like; or you could jolt the table randomly as much as you like;
or you could expose the components to intense ionizing radiation; or blast
them with dynamite; etc. Will the parts assemble into an organized and
complex arrangement? No. Then there must be something that opposes this,
even with the addition of energy.
*************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 22 2000 - 22:46:08 EDT