The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by dj2becker
So are you saying that life did NOT ultimately 'evolve' from non-life?

Non-life is as fuzzy a concept as life. You must first define exactly what you
mean by non-life. Is a two-celled organism a life? It doesn't think (or does
it), and it can't do anything but float around in it's environment.

What is non-life, exactly?

Originally posted by Starrman
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

However life came into being, be it god, be it random chance, be it aliens, be it magic, whatever way, regardless of anything, the TOE is concerned from then on!!!!!

He just doesn't get it. Perhaps it's time to try a new approach of educating
the man? Or give up. 😞

Originally posted by Starrman
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Never argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Originally posted by stocken
Perhaps it's time to try a new approach of educating
the man?

I vote for a big stick with a nail in the end.

Originally posted by dj2becker
"Think" is a crucial word there. That abiogenesis has been demonstrated to be true is totally a difference matter.

With regards to why abiogenesis defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I suggest you read my initial post and hand me your critique of it, if you can manage to do so.

The Earth/Primordial Soup/Living organisms are not closed systems, therefore, THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS DOES NOT APPLY. Your initial post, as has been pointed out multiple times, was completely pointless. Your entire arguement was blatantly false and logically invalid. I could also nitpick little factual details, espcially regarding your (or whomever wrote that article)'s misconceptions of evolutionary theory, but it isn't neccesary because
1.The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics DOES NOT apply to abiogenesis, by the very definition of that law.
2. Neither the Big Bang, nor abiogenesis relate to evolution. Scientists, atheists, and rationalists all happen to frequently belive all of these, but Evolution can be true with or without the others.

"Think" is a crucial word there.
You are correct, you should try it sometime.

Originally posted by Starrman
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

However life came into being, be it god, be it random chance, be it aliens, be it magic, whatever way, regardless of anything, the TOE is concerned from then on!!!!!

Now you really sound like a two year old kid who's been robbed of a sweet! 😀

You mean to say that you've never heard of Chemical evolution (chemosynthesis)?

I quote:

"Chemical evolution has two meanings and uses. The first refers to the theories of evolution of the chemical elements in the universe following the Big Bang and through nucleosynthesis in stars and supernovas.

The second use of chemical evolution or chemosynthesis is as a hypothesis to explain how life might possibly have developed or evolved from non-life (see abiogenesis)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution

PS: I would advise you to leave your toys and go to preschool for a change. 😛

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
The Earth/Primordial Soup/Living organisms are not closed systems, therefore, [b]THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS DOES NOT APPLY. Your initial post, as has been pointed out multiple times, was completely pointless. Your entire arguement was blatantly false and logically invalid. I could also nitpick little factual details, espcially regar s.

"Think" is a crucial word there.
You are correct, you should try it sometime.[/b]

Did abiogenesis supposedly occur within the universe?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Did abiogenesis supposedly occur within the universe?

Yes, it occured within the universe. The net entropy in the universe did not increase due to abiogenesis or evolution.

Local decreses in entropy are allowed, and expected, just the overall entropy of the Universe will not increase.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Now you really sound like a two year old kid who's been robbed of a sweet! 😀

You mean to say that you've never heard of Chemical evolution (chemosynthesis)?

I quote:

"Chemical evolution has two meanings and uses. The first refers to the theories of evolution of the chemical elements in the universe following the Big Bang and through nucleosynth ...[text shortened]... _evolution

PS: I would advise you to leave your toys and go to preschool for a change. 😛

The theory of evolution is not concerned with chemical evolution, and I suspect you know it, this is a cop-out.

Evolution: (n) 1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

---Webster's Dictionary.

Evolution is a word, and has many similair meanings, all of which are used (obviously). Just because the word "evolution" is used, does not mean it is a part of the same theory we are discussing.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
Yes, it occured within the universe. The net entropy in the universe did not increase due to abiogenesis or evolution.

Local decreses in entropy are allowed, and expected, just the overall entropy of the Universe will not increase.

Let me take part of the quote I used from initial post:

"“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”
[Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6] "

Things in the universe are running down, and not getting better as your big TOE states. This is also not compatible with your abiogenesis theory.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
The theory of evolution is not concerned with chemical evolution, and I suspect you know it, this is a cop-out.

Evolution: (n) 1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from ...[text shortened]... he word "evolution" is used, does not mean it is a part of the same theory we are discussing.

The theory of evolution is not concerned with chemical evolution, and I suspect you know it, this is a cop-out.

By your definition of the theory evolution, of course it isn't. I am refering to "Evolutionary Science" in its totality, and whether you like it or not, chemical evolution is part of "Evolutionary Science".

Originally posted by dj2becker
Let me take part of the quote I used from initial post:

"“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter ...[text shortened]... tting better as your big TOE states. This is also not compatible with your abiogenesis theory.

1. The UNIVERSE is getting more disorderly, but bits of it are getting more orderly, just on a local scale.

2. The cited article does not say or imply that everything gets worse and more run down, just that it will without input of energy, which is true.

3. Misunderstanding a law of physics is not an argument. Rephrasing a law so as to be ambiguous enough to support your point of view is not an arguement.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]The theory of evolution is not concerned with chemical evolution, and I suspect you know it, this is a cop-out.

By your definition of the theory evolution, of course it isn't. I am refering to "Evolutionary Science" in its totality, and whether you like it or not, chemical evolution is part of "Evolutionary Science".[/b]

So I guess we should tell economists and mathematicians to throw out "Evolutionary Game Theory" as well?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Let me take part of the quote I used from initial post:

"“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter ...[text shortened]... tting better as your big TOE states. This is also not compatible with your abiogenesis theory.

Neither is it compatible with life, if your own definition is correct, which it isn't.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Neither is it compatible with life, if your own definition is correct, which it isn't.

Unless life was created and is running down as reality indicates.

Why do you say the definition is incorrect? Because your house was never painted so its paint can never wear off?