>>>Richard Wein: [snip most of Stephen's nonsense]
>>>SEJones: Richard says of himself below that: "I admit that I don't
understand the Second Law either"!
>>>Richard Wein: Exactly. I have the sense to realize that the Second Law is
a complex technical issue that I don't fully understand.
DNAunion: Which indicates that you should not be making definitive claims,
like calling those that see things differently than you in any way ignorant
or flat out wrong.
>>>Richard Wein: Stephen, on the other hand, has the arrogance to believe
that he understands it better than the experts!
DNAunion: No, Stephen is *using* experts - not contradicting them - to
explain the problem that "naturalists" sweep under the rug.
>>>Richard Wein: There has been a discussion recently in talk.origins about
whether the entropy of the sun is increasing or decreasing. It has been
claimed that it's decreasing, because nuclear fusion results in a decrease in
the number of particles. I don't pretend to know whether this is correct, but
no doubt Stephen, with his thorough knowledge of the Second Law, will be able
to enlighten us. (Not!)
DNAunion: Seems like an irrelevant point to me. Anyway, there would be
nothing wrong with the sun's entropy decreasing because the sun increases the
entropy of the surroundings in compensation. Bringing this back to Sejones'
argument, the energy the sun fed the prebiotic Earth could not have taken
simple, prebiotic molecules and "boiled" them, or "melted" them, into a cell.
>>>Richard Wein: I may not fully understand the Second Law, but I understand
enough to see that Stephen doesn't have a clue about it.
DNAunion: You shouldn't assert a biased personal opinion as a fact. I
haven't followed all of SEJones' statements on the second law, but his post
with several quotes from "The Mystery of Life's Origins" fit in well with
what I have read from mainstream sources.
>>>Richard Wein: Stephen and his friends keep referring to stuff like
"code-driven energy-conversion systems" in the context of the Second Law.
Just reading the Second Law, in any of the forms that physicists give it, one
can see that it says _nothing_ at_all_ about codes or conversion systems.
DNAunion: Did you even read what you are criticizing? SEJones presented a
quote that explicitly stated that things like coupling mechanisms are not
actually part of the 2nd law.
Coupling mechanisms are not part of the second law, but they are used by life
to "overcome" the second law. The burning of gas can provide a lot of
energy: but pouring gas over a car and setting it on fire will not drive a
car to the grocery store. If the energy released by the burning of gas is
captured and channeled (using, you guessed it, coupling mechanisms), then the
car can function properly. Same goes for cells. Take a cell from your body
and place it in the sun - even being completely drenched with sufficient
energy from the sun, that cell will die: it is missing the photosynthetic
machinery (the cylinders, pistons, and valves) required to capture and
channel that energy. It doesn't matter how much energy you throw at that
cell, if it can't use it, it is for all practical purposes a closed
thermodynamic system.
>>>Richard Wein: The only form of the law that mentions these is the version
invented by creationists.
DNAunion: Not so.
"Even if we assume the existence of some [primitive] membrane-bound
light-trapping system, we still have to account for the channeling of the
trapped energy into productive chemical processes, rather than useless heat."
(Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative, Christian de Duve, Basic Books,
1995, p35)
Is Richard calling Christian de Duve a creationist?
"As a general rule, the molecule used in biological process as a coupling
agent for the driving of reactions with positive [delta]G [that is,
thermodynamically unfavorable reactions] is adenosine triphosphate (ATP).
The hydrolysis reaction of ATP has a negative [delta]G [that is, it liberates
energy], and the energy required by reactions such as the reduction of CO2 to
glucose or dehydration-condensations is provided, directly or indirectly, by
this reaction." (Noam Lahav, Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origins, Oxford
University Press, 1999, p88)
Is Noam Lahav also a Creationist? Let's look more at ATP (the coupling
mechanism Lahav just mentioned in relation to thermodynamics).
"In all living cells, certain key "electron falls" are coupled to the
assembly of ATP from ADP and [inorganic phosphate], the way certain
waterfalls are harnessed to the running of a mill or to the generation of
electricity. This universal mechanism is called oxidative phosphorylation -
oxidative because the electron donor in the coupled reaction is oxidized;
phosphorylation because ADP is phosphorylated, that is, fitted with an
additional phosphate group in the process. It requires three conditions:
(1) an appropriate source of electrons; (2) and outlet for the electrons
situated at a sufficiently lower energy level for the amount of energy
released by the electron transfer to cover the needs of ATP assembly (as a
rule, one ATP molecule is assembled for each pair of electrons transferred);
and (3) a coupling system - the equivalent of the waterwheel or turbine in
the waterfall analogy - linking ATP assembly to electron flow." (Vital Dust:
Life as a Cosmic Imperative, Christian de Duve, Basic Books, 1995, p42)
Note particularly the description of the third requirement - "(3) a coupling
system - the equivalent of the waterwheel or turbine in the waterfall analogy
- linking ATP assembly to electron flow."
Here's another.
"It should be noted that if the hydrolysis of ATP takes place freely, the
energy it releases is dissipated to the environment in the form of heat,
rendering it unavailable for the performance of chemical reactions. It is
the gradual, enzymatic energy transfer that enables utilization of the
phosphate bond [energy]. … The hydrolysis of ATP is enzymatically coupled to
the performance of many cellular reactions." (Noam Lahav, Biogenesis:
Theories of Life's Origins, Oxford University Press, 1999, p88)
So for ATP (itself a coupling mechanism) both its synthesis and hydrolysis
are controlled by enzymatic coupling mechanisms.
>>>Richard Wein: Stephen's basic error is to confuse the Second Law of
Thermodynamics with the Creationist Law of Thermodynamics.
DNAunion; No, Richard's basic error is to confuse the Second Law of
Thermodynamics with his prejudiced, preconceived notions of a Creationist Law
of Thermodynamics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 08 2000 - 21:11:24 EST