>>>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.
******************
DNAunion: It is obvious from this and other statements in Paul's response to
me that Paul is getting more and more personal, less and less objective, and
more and more difficult to communicate with. Based on his current trend, I
expect future exchanges to degenerate.
******************
>>>Paul Robson: 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 ?
******************
DNAunion: If you really what to understand what I mean, what don't you
simply reread the portion I pointed you to: see up there in the first snippet
of mine you posted: "See my above paragraph for a more-detailed statement".
******************
>>>Paul Robson: You haven't addressed anything.
*****************
DNAunion: It is obvious from this and other statements in Paul's response to
me that Paul is getting more and more personal, less and less objective, and
more and more difficult to communicate with. Based on his current trend, I
expect future exchanges to degenerate.
*****************
>>>Paul Robson: 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,
***************
DNAunion: Paul is again trying his best to stir things up, in a negative
way, by claiming ambiguity or equivocation on my part (he is nitpicking my
word choices, or at least trying to).
Ironically, his claim itself contains ambiguity, so I can't address it fully.
When he says "coupling implies the changes are directly linked together", is
he stating that there is a direct, *physical* connection established between
the two, or merely a direct *mental/conceptual* connection established
between the two? Since he seems to be objecting to my statements, I will
assume he means the former (if he had been more careful in *his* wording, I
would not need to assume anything!).
Anyway, I was able to quickly find 3 statements that support my usage.
[quote]"ATP: The Universal Energy Coupler
The anabolic reactions of cells are responsible for the growth and repair
processes characteristic of all living systems, while catabolic reactions
release the energy needed to drive the anabolic reactions and to carry out
other kinds of cellular work. The efficient linking, or coupling, of
energy-yielding processes to energy-requiring processes is therefore crucial
to cell function. This coupling is made possible by specific kinds of
molecules that conserve the energy derived from exergonic reactions, which is
then available whenever and wherever that energy is needed. In the
biological world, the molecules that is used most commonly as an energy
intermediate is the phosphorylated compound adenosine triphosphate (ATP)."
(The World of the Cell: Third Edition, Wayne M. Becker, Jane B. Reece, &
Martin F. Poenie, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1996, p297)[/quote]
These authors make it clear that the *coupled* reactions CAN BE SEPARATED BY
BOTH SPACE AND TIME.
[quote]"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." (Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative, Christian de Duve,
Basic Books, 1995, p42)[/quote]
de Duve knows that the electron falls are not DIRECTLY coupled to the
assembly of ATP from ADP and inorganic phosphate. The electron fall helps
establish a proton gradient across the membranes, and the resulting motion of
protons through the ATPase turns a slotted "merry go round" (if you will) in
the ATPase which is where the ATP is physically assembled. The "electron
falls" are SEPARATED BY BOTH SPACE AND TIME from the process with which they
are coupled.
[quote]"These radiocarbon studies coupled with the amino acid results
presented here indicate that major and minor organic constituents in these
Martian meteorites are contaminants." (A Search for Endogenous Amino Acids
in Martian Meteorite ALH84001, Jeffrey L. Bada, * Daniel P. Gavin, Gene D.
McDonald, Luann Becker, Science, 279 (5349): 362)[/quote]
Does Paul think that Bada et. al. took those two sets of results and
physically linked them together? No. These coupled items also were
SEPARATED BY BOTH SPACE AND TIME.
Anyway, it is clear that my usage of the word "coupled" was valid. Of course
the word has more than one meaning (few words don't). Paul should try to
take more than one of them into consideration in an attempt to demonstrate
equivocation (what he called playing word games"). I did not.
***********************
>>>Paul Robson: and in the sense of it being a mechanism to achieve such (in
which case the entropy
change is directly connected).
**********************
DNAunion: I have - to the best of my knowledge (oops, perhaps I should not
say this as Paul will object that it is "absurd", and ask if I mean I did, I
think I did, I didn't, I could have, ....) - now I've lost my train of
thought; let me start over.
I have - to the best of my knowledge - explicitly used both words (i.e.,
coupling mechanism) when referring to some kind of a physical object (a
ribosome, or ATPase, for example). When I used only the word "couple", its
usage is broader, indicating that things are joined in some manner, either
physically or conceptually. My use of the single word "couple", as
demonstrated above, is valid; and my explicit addition of the term
"mechanism" when referring to physical structures makes this usage clear also.
**********************
>>>Paul Robson: 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).
******************
DNAunion: Yet I was able to give two examples of people from this very
discussion forum, in the last couple days, *basically* doing this. Your
statement that open-system thermodynamics alone "knocked out" the
Creationists claims, and Chris Cogan's vague appeal to energy mixing stuff up
somehow and creating a self-replicator. If you guys know that more is
involved, and you know that BOTH are needed to counter the Creationist claims
or to explain the origin of self-replicators, then why did you both omit the
other needed parts and mention only OST? And why have a "hissy fit" and
start claiming I am asserting a "Creationist straw man" when I point out that
"you guys" omitted those other needed parts and relied only on OST?
******************
>>>Paul Robson: 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.
****************
DNAunion: Yep, I know what solely means. And that is what you and Chris
did. You relied solely on open-system thermodynamics to "knock out" the
Creationists claims, and Chris relied solely on open-system thermodynamics to
mix things up and somehow generate a self-replicator.
*****************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 22:47:35 EST