[...]
>>>DNAUnion: ... and more importantly, the origin of those biological
molecules machines is never addressed. And should the Creationist/IDist
bring up problems of the origin of said molecular machines, the
"Evolutionist" falls back to the position that they themselves are not part
of thermodynamics: moving the goal posts.
>>>Paul Robson: That's because both these are distraction tactics, DNAUnion,
and they are commonly used by CIDers in my experience.
DNAunion: No, the thread started off talking about thermodynamics in
relation to the origin of life, and stating that more is needed the simply
available energy. It was those who changed the subject - the
"evolutioninsts" - that are practicing distraction tactics.
On 10/26/2000, 19:11:46 EDT, SEJones started the thread "Phil Johnson on the
Second Law of Thermodynamics", and in it, SEJones (and those he quoted)
discussed (1) thermodynamics as it applied to the origin of life and (2) the
need for something more than just available energy. Thus, my points are
valid. It is those who refuse to discuss these two points that are changing
the subject - diverting attention away from the real issue.
[quote]SEJones quoting Phil Johnson: Consider this example from a Time
Magazine cover story, dated December 28, 1992, Pg. 38, by Robert Wright. Here
is the relevant paragraph:
Various scientists are pondering the prospect that a basic physical law lies
waiting to be discovered, a law defining the circumstances under which
systems infused with energy become more complexly structured. This law would
carve out local exceptions to the general tendency of things to become more
chaotic and bland -- higher in "entropy" -- as dictated by the famously
depressing second law of thermodynamics. Charles H. Bennett, of IBM's Thomas
J. Watson Research Center, who has deeply shaped the modern understanding of
the second law, suspects there is indeed a law that if known would make
****life's origin**** less baffling. Such a law, he has said, would play a
role "formerly assigned to God."
I am sure that both Charles Bennett and Robert Wright would define the Second
Law as you do, but they have no difficulty making sense of the claim that
there is no known natural process that can explain the complexity of living
organisms in light of the Second Law. ****It takes more than saying that the
earth is an open system receiving energy from the sun to explain why we see
such enormous increases in complex ordered systems on the earth****. Of
course the Second Law does not prevent _all_ local increases in order; that
would be absurd. Physical laws do produce simple, repetitive forms of order,
but this is quite different from the highly complex forms of organization
present in e.g., a jet airplane, a computer program, or a living cell. Hence
the perceived need for what Bennett and Wright think of as a new basic
physical law "that if known would make ****life's origin**** less baffling."
...
The better way to state the entropy argument is to say that the functional
organization of living systems requires the presence of complex specified
aperiodic information, which does not appear to be produced either by chance,
or by physical law, or by a combination of chance and law. [/quote]
DNAunion: It is clear that the real question which SEJones, I, and others
what answered is, how did the mechanisms (be they called "coupling
mechanisms", "energy-directing mechanisms", "information processing
systems", "complex, specified information", etc.) required to properly
harness the available energy on the prebiotic Earth into generating
biologically-relevant work (i.e., the other part of the solution: the part
that is required in addition to open-system thermodynamics) come into
existence when they currently arise only from preexisting ones? The real
question again is not how life operates now, but how it became capable of
operating: one can give a full accounting of the operation of a computer or
internal-combustion engine in terms of physics and chemistry alone, but the
origin of the computer or engine required something more than just the known
laws of physics and chemistry themselves.
So SEJones laid out the real question. And what did the first person to
respond do? Change the subject.
>>>Phil Johnson: Physical laws do produce simple, repetitive forms of order,
but this is quite different from the highly complex forms of organization
present in e.g., a jet airplane, a computer program, or a living cell.
>>>Richard Wein: More obfuscation. In what way are they quite different? Of
course there are *some* differences, but what do these differences have to do
with the Second Law? Nothing!
DNAunion: It is obvious how they are different (but Richard's distraction
does help direct attention away from the real issue). One deals with a mere
increase in order (formation of snowflakes, vortex when draining a tub, etc.)
and the other deals with an increase in *complex organization* (formation of
a jet airplane, computer program, or living cell). Richard dismisses
Johnson's valid point right off the bat, taking us away from the original
point. No wonder that original point keeps getting lost - others too do the
same thing, no matter how often I try to return the discussion to the
original point.
And we see right off the bat another sleight-of-hand counter that I
mentioned: Richard changes from discussing *thermodynamics as it applies to
life* to discussing thermodynamics *only*. This manipulation of the
discussion then allows Richard to make claims such as "this or that isn't
even part of thermodynamics", trying to show the opponent to be distorting
science. However, as I pointed out elsewhere, one can surely talk about
gravity when talking about airplane flight, even though engines, pilots,
fuel, etc. are involved. Likewise, one can talk about thermodynamics when
talking about life, even though ribosomes, DNA, RNA, biological information,
etc. are involved.
>>>Phil Johnson: The better way to state the entropy argument is to say that
the functional organization of living systems requires the presence of
complex specified aperiodic information, which does not appear to be produced
either by chance, or by physical law, or by a combination of chance and law.
>>>Richard Wein: Which "entropy argument"? Is Johnson still talking about
the Second Law, or has he subtly changed the subject? If he's still talking
about the Second Law, than this is yet another misrepresentation of the
Second Law.
DNAunion: No, this is another of *Richard's* misrepresentations of the real
question being asked by Phillip Johnson in his post.
>>>Richard Wein: Complex specified information (as defined by Dembski) has
absolutely nothing to do with the Second Law. If he's changed the subject,
then this is a red herring.
DNAunion: But it is Richard who again changes the subject. Complex,
specified information may not have anything to do with thermodynamics itself
(although many have expressed information in terms of negative entropy), but
it does have something to do with life, which is the other half of the topic
(and complex, specified information is required in extant cells to overcome
the tendency cells have towards greater disorder and reaching thermodynamic
equilibrium).
I tried to make this simple, but no one seems to get it.
(1) Start with a cell and disrupt one of its "coupling mechanisms" (eliminate
an enzyme needed in metabolism, or remove the genes that code for the
ribosome, or eliminate all genes that code for ATPases, etc.). What happens?
The cells dies (the reactions that were being actively kept far from
equilibrium reach equilibrium, or components will not be able to be
constructed or repaired). You start with a highly-organized cell - which
must fight continuously to stay highly organized - and end up with a
"lifeless blob of goop". Cellular order is lost as disorder increases.
This is thermodynamics in a biological context.
(2) Go the other route: start with a "lifeless blob of goop". Sit there and
watch it. Watch it some more. Go ahead, keep watching. Did it
spontaneously assemble itself into a functioning cell? No, of course not.
The "goop" remains randomly arranged and will not spontaneously organize
itself into a functioning cell. Energy (and coupling mechanisms) is needed
to drive the uphill reactions associated with constructing and maintaining a
cell. This too is thermodynamics in a biological context.
So we saw how SEJones started the thread by discussing thermodynamics as it
applies to the origin of life, and how Richard then deflected the true
course. Well, perhaps you say, the discussion never came back to the origin
of life. Wrong. Here is the third post in the thread, which addressed
Richard's reply to SEJones.
>>>DNAunion [quoting Dean Kenyon]: … The problem I have with that is that we
have no empirical indication as to how an energy capture system (i.e., a
primitive photosynthesis mechanism) could have originated by purely natural
means: and then, of course, we have no indication in the experimental data as
to how a genetic system, a gene which would direct chemistry against the
tendency that the Second Law imposes on matter toward greater disorder [could
have arisen by purely natural means]. In the absence of those two lines of
evidence, I am going to suspend judgment about whether or not the origin of
life "violates" the Second Law." (Focus on the Origin of Life, An Interview
with Dean H. Kenyon, Profess
or of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1994, VHS Tape from Access
Research Network, http://www.arn.org)
This is closer to my position relating to entropy. Neither the maintenance of
preexisting life nor the evolution of preexisting life are the real issues:
these can be explained by relying on the highly-complex preexisting
biochemistry of cells (but *still* require the continual struggle against the
natural tendency of entropy to increase, and for reactions to reach
equilibrium).
The origin of life is different, as there were then no preexisting closed
metabolic cycles, no specified complex information as found in genomes, and
no complex enzymes. How did pools of simple, random, organic molecules,
operated upon by undirected and uncontrollable energy sources only, become so
ordered, complex, and *organized* to produce the first cells?
Experience shows us that the natural tendency IS away from the complex and
organized state associated with cells.
First, let's start from the building blocks and see if we get life. Take a
single bacterium and rupture its cell wall and plasma membrane so that its
contents leak out, but remain confined to the area immediately surrounding
the bacterium. Those INTACT, PREEXISTING ENZYMES, DNA, RIBOSOMES, … ETC will
*NOT* reform a functioning cell. And the starting point just mentioned is
far, far above the level of organization that OOL researchers have achieved
(no prebiotically plausible mechanisms for the generation of enzymes, DNA,
ribosomes, … etc.).
Second, let's start with life and see what happens. Take a fully-functioning
bacterium and take away its food source. The natural tendency for disorder
(entropy) to increase - no longer being opposed by the bacterium due to no
more flow of matter and energy through the cell - will cause its
highly-organized state to disintegrate.
DNAunion: So it is clear that the Thermodynamics thread that has recently
been posted to quite a bit, and which has splintered off into several
subthreads, started off on the right track - discussing thermodynamics in
relation to the origin of life - but that the "Evolutionists" then derailed
it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 27 2000 - 17:17:46 EST