>>>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".
**********************
DNAunion: Coupling mechanisms are NOT required in thermodynamics itself.
Coupling mechanisms ARE part of bioenergetics, which is the melding of
thermodynamics with cell biology. In thermodynamics, things can and do
happen all the time without coupling mechanisms: the Sun can exist and
function as usual without needing something like ATPase or a ribosome. But
in biology, an extant cell cannot exist without coupling mechanisms: pure and
simple. In cells, energy must be properly harnessed, controlled, and
channeled into performing specific, biologically-relevant work, most of which
goes against the natural tendencies towards increasing disorder and against
the tendency for reactions to reach thermodynamic equilibrium.
**********************
>>>Paul Robson: 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.
*********************
DNAunion: No, that is NOT the only way it makes sense. The correct way, as
explained above, is that in *thermodynamics* coupling mechanisms are not
needed, but that in *bioenergetics*, they are.
*********************
>>>Paul Robson: [you must be saying] 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.
**********************
>>>DNAunion: All my statements you have brought up have been
self-consistent. My position does NOT require that the 2nd law be violated.
First, if someone provides a convincing explanation for the creation of
prebiotic coupling mechanisms that could cause the transition from inanimate
to animate, then I would be satisfied (about that one point at least) and the
2nd law would not be violated in any way. Second, if life ("bacteria") were
designed and created on another planet and then seeded here, the engineers
would have had access to coupling mechanisms that could direct energy flow
into accomplishing useful work. Again, no violation of the second law.
The only 2 ways I can think of that the second law could possibly be violated
in scenarios involving the origin of the first cells would be (1) if one
proposed that God "popped" the first bacterium into existence out of nothing
(the supernatural does not have to obey the laws of nature), but I don't
propose this, or (2) if someone proposed that a functioning cell arose from
hypothetical pools of simple organics without any coupling mechanisms at all.
This one, number (2), is "iffy". It is certain that coupling had to occur
or else the 2nd law would in fact have been violated (order cannot arise from
disorder *without being coupled with an increase in disorder elsewhere*).
The somewhat open question is whether a *sufficient amount* of coupling of
uphill reactions with downhill reactions could have occurred without
involving coupling *mechanisms* (remember, thermodynamics itself does not
require coupling mechanisms, but bioenergetics does). I believe the answer
is no - that some kind of mechanism would have been required to achieve the
degree of organizational work involved (basing this primarily on what we
find in extant cells: that is, on what we DO know, not on what we DON'T
know.) If this is true, and it seems pretty safe to conclude that it is,
then someone proposing that life originated without eomploying any coupling
mechanisms along the way would be asking that the second law be violated.
Again, I don't propose this either.
********************************
>>>Paul Robson: 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]
************************
DNAunion: Simply put, order cannot arise from disorder *without being
coupled to an increase in disorder elsewhere*. See my above paragraph for a
more-detailed statement.
PS: You omitted a very key phrase of mine in your reformulation of my
statements. Here is my original, with emphasis added to point out that key
phrase:
"We are saying that for a functioning cell to arise from pools of simple
organics WITHOUT ANY COUPLING MECHANISMS would be, *****AS FAR AS WE CAN
TELL*****, a violation of the second law".
Note how I qualified my statement.
************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 13:39:59 EST