In a message dated 11/11/00 03:55:38 GMT Standard Time, DNAunion writes:
DNAunion:
Correct again.
But we are not claiming that lack of a coupling mechanism
itself violates the second law
(how could we since coupling mechanisms are not required in
thermodynamics).
We are saying - if I may speak for both of us - that for a functioning
cell to arise from pools of simple organics (yada yada yada)
WITHOUT ANY COUPLING MECHANISMS would be, as far as
we can tell, a violation of the 2nd law.
Paul Robson:
Perhaps I'm stupid.
Your first sentence says
"We (presumably DNA & SEJ ?) are not claiming that lack of
a coupling mechanism itself violates the second law".
And your second sentence says:
"We are saying that for a functioning cell to arise from pools
of simple organics WITHOUT ANY COUPLING MECHANISMS
(your caps) would be, as far as we can tell, a violation of the
second law".
Despite the fact that "coupling methods are not required by
thermodynamics".
Now, the only way this could make any sense at all is if you
mean "in general" in the first case [you don't say] and
"in this specific example" in the second case e.g.
In general, a lack of a coupling mechanism does not violate
the second law.
In the specific case quoted, a lack of a coupling mechanism does
violate the second law.
The odd thing is you later claim "My position does not claim that
the 2nd law is any way violated, defied, broken, or done away with"
which your second sentence seems to me to do.
I can only presume what you mean is "without the coupling
mechanism, the second law of thermodynamics is violated in
the case above (cell arising from random mush). Which part
of it is "violated" ? [YOUR words]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 04:53:12 EST