>>>Richard Wein: … (BTW I'd filtered out DNAUnion, but I got this via
Nelson's post. I have now
filtered out Nelson, Stephen Jones and Silk too, which should considerably
reduce the amount of nonsense coming into my mail box.)
*********************
DNAunion: I really like what Nelson Alonso said in reply to this!
*********************
>>>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.
>>>Nelson:What is the creationist law of thermodynamics?
>>>DNAunion: There is none. Richard was being "humorous". The implication
is that "our" version of thermodynamics is that "order never comes from
disorder" (as Paul posted), or that "evolution violates thermodynamics".
However, anyone who has followed the discussions here will see that NEITHER
SEJones nor I propose either of these.
>>>Richard Wein: If you'd read my post more carefully, you'd have seen that
the creationist versions of the Second Law to which I referred were the ones
referring to stuff like "code-driven energy-conversion systems".
***********************
DNAunion: I continually refer to *"stuff like"* code-driven
energy-conversion systems in my discussions on relating thermodynamics to the
origin of life (in the form of "coupling mechanisms").
***********************
>>>Richard Wein: Stephen wrote:
"Yes. See the above quotes. The problem with the SLoT is thatevolutionists
generally: 1) do not bother to listen to what creationists are *really*
saying; 2) do not address the *real* issue which is the *origin* of the
code-driven energy-conversion systems; 3) respond with irrelevant
red-herrings about open and closed systems, etc; and 4) cloak their answers
in a lot of technical jargon which further obscures the matter rather than
clarifying it."
So, according to Stephen, "the *real* issue" with the SLoT "is the *origin*
of the code-driven energy-conversion systems". But the *real* SLoT says
nothing about such systems.
*********************
DNAunion: Again, you are missing his and my main point. SEJones and I are
discussing the SLoT *as it applies to life*. The field that unites the
branch of physics called thermodynamics, with the cell biology branch of
biology, is called bioenergetics.
"The principles that govern energy flow are incorporated in an area of
science that the physical chemist calls thermodynamics. Although the prefix
thermo- suggests that the term is limited to heat (and that is indeed its
historical origin), thermodynamics also takes into account other forms of
energy and processes that convert energy from one form to another.
Specifically, thermodynamics concerns the laws governing the energy
transactions that inevitably accompany most physical processes and all
chemical reactions. Bioenergetics, in turn, can be thought of as applied
thermodynamics - that is, it concerns the application of thermodynamic
principles to reactions and processes in the biological world." (The World
of the Cell: Third Edition, Wayne M. Becker, Jane B. Reece, & Martin F.
Poenie, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1996, p119)
It would be nice if our opponents would do as SEJones suggests and pay
attention to our actual discussion: the application of thermodynamics to
life, and more specifically, to the origin of life. We are not talking about
a cup of hot tea cooling off.
***********************
>>>Richard Wein: For a very clear example of a major creationist making up
his own law of
thermodynamics, read this...
<begin quote from ChristianAnswers.net
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html>
Dr. Henry Morris has proposed A COMPREHENSIVE DEFINITION OF THE 2ND LAW OF
THERMODYNAMICS in accordance with this concept:
"In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that
system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended
or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an
informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter
mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure
of that system.
If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available
to that 'open' system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much
external energy surrounds it. The system will decay in accordance with the
Second Law of Thermodynamics."
[Henry M. Morris, "Entropy and Open Systems," Acts and Facts, Vol. 5 (P.O.Box
2667, El Cajon, California 92021: Institute for Creation Research,October
1976).]
<end quote>
************************
DNAunion: The first part sounds okay to me: "In any ordered system, open or
closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of
disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external
source of ordering energy…" Note he too is talking of *tendencies*, not
*absolute musts* (men *tend* to be stronger than women, but as a teen, I lost
arm wrestling bouts to a woman: and at my advanced age (well, 38) I would
surely lose to many young women now).
I do see one inconsistency, but it is a fine point that does not detract from
the validity of the portion I quoted from him. He states that the one needs
an EXTERNAL source of energy, but earlier, he mentioned systems that were
"open OR CLOSED". We could get into discussions of isolated vs. closed, but
it is *generally acceptable* to state that neither mass nor energy can flow
into or out of a closed system.
Nevertheless, Morris definitely goes over the line when he continues by
saying that the tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external
source of energy "directed by an informational program and transformed
through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work
required to build up the complex structure of that system." This *MAY* (and
I believe it probably does) apply to systems that are extremely organized,
complex, complicated, and composed of numerous interdependent
components/processes, where the various processes must be maintained far from
thermodynamic eqilibrium (i.e., a functioning cell), but surely not to *all*
systems. The simple example I give a lot is the increase in order associated
with draining a reservoir of water through a narrow pipe: an orderly vortex
arises and there are no "ingestion-storage-converter mechanism[s]" to be
found in my tub.
************************
>>>Richard Wein: I don't know whether *you* (DNAUnion) are making the same
error as creationists, but, as I referred only to creationists, I wasn't
including you, was I? ;-)
***********************
DNAunion: Well, that was why I enclosed the word "our" in double quotes: to
indicate that it should not be taken literally. I am not using the
Creationist arguments, if, as people here have stated, their arguments
include things like "order can never arise from disorder" or "evolution
violates the second law". But my quick reading of Phillip Johnson's reply to
a scientist that was posted here seemed pretty sound to me (and I do consider
Johnson to be a Creationist/ID hybrid - not a pure IDist).
I have been presenting an argument concerning the origin of life and the need
for some kind of currently-unspecified coupling mechanism (especially if the
solution offered for the uphill reactions associated with biology is a vague
appeal to open-system thermodynamics involving photons, "the sun supplied the
energy to the prebiotic Earth needed to increase the order"). To repeat
something I am likely to be repeating frequently from now on, "I am not
talking about a hot cup of tea cooling off": there is more involved in
bioenergetics than there is in thermodynamics alone!
The last post of SEJones' on this that I read meshed with my argument very
well (depending on your frame of reference, it could be that my argument
meshed well with his). Therefore, I have been considering ours for all
practical purposes, equivalent. Maybe he holds to some of the Creationist
views that others have posted here and I just haven't read them. However, I
have found no problems (at least none that that jumped out at me) in SEJones'
material I have read. Again, I am considering our position on this to be,
for all practical purposes, identical.
Now, the way I see it, unless one goes out of the way a bit to avoid the
following conclusion, you are calling SEJones' argument about thermodynamics
in relation to the origin of life a "Creationist Law of Thermodynamics".
Since his and mine appear to me to be so similar, then I consider you to be
calling my "version" of thermodynamics Creationist also. I feel this is
unwarranted, especially since you (and our other opponents) won't even
discuss the topic we are.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 10 2000 - 22:20:13 EST