In a message dated 11/11/00 18:40:21 GMT Standard Time, DNAunion@aol.com
writes:
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".
Paul Robson:
Well, this is just absurd. How can you say "would be, as far as we
can tell". Does this mean yes, no or don't know, or haven't a clue ?
You haven't addressed anything. You write that ""We (presumably
DNA & SEJ ?) are not claiming that lack of a coupling mechanism
itself violates the second law"
I personally believe you are playing games with the word "coupling"
It is used to mean both "linking together changes in entropy so
the 2LT is not violated", which is a poor usage, as coupling implies
the changes are directly linked together, and in the sense of it
being a mechanism to achieve such (in which case the entropy
change is directly connected).
I would be inclined to give you the benefit of more doubt if I hadn't
seen your other claim about "solely relying on OST to show cell
organisation". I suspect this is simply what you think you've read,
as I have never seen anyone claim this , except as a Creationist
straw man argument (the evolving junkyard).
To discredit this statement, all you have to do is to produce someone
who "solely relies on OST to show cell organisation". Please be aware
of what the words "solely relies" mean. They use nothing else.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 19:03:03 EST