>>>Ccogan: Since reproduction can occur either as a mere catalytic process, a
template-using process, or as a process of creation and assembly of
components (as in virus replication), there are plenty of ways in which the
Sun's energy, and the energy from the core of the Earth itself, etc., can
promote reproduction once this energy has brought about enough natural
"mixing" of existing components to produce the first simple and suitable
replicator.
***************
DNAunion: First, you listed three "independent" methods of reproduction, as
if any one of the three can stand by itself. But these are not independent.
"[A]ssembly of components (as in virus replication)" does not occur without
there first being "a template-processing process", which does not occur
without a "catalytic process". Note also that you later state, "even the
simplest catalytic process is "code-driven,"", which seems to further
entangle these "independent" processes of reproduction.
Second, you have glazed over some of the most important steps on the way to
life: how the first self-replicators arose. You have basically done what
Paul Robson claims no evolutionist does! You have presented a *vague appeal*
to open-system thermodynamics ("there are plenty of ways in which the Sun's
energy, and the energy from the core of the Earth itself, etc., can promote
reproduction once this energy has brought about enough natural "mixing" of
existing components to produce the first simple and suitable replicator.")
At least you didn't rely solely on the sol (pun intended) and brought up the
energy made available from the Earth's core. But still, your explanation for
the generation of the first replicators boils down to, "energy did some
mixing of stuff in some unspecified way".
****************
>>>Chris Cogan: Once that replicator exists in a suitable environment, it
will proceed to "saturate" that environment, unless it first produces fitter
variations.
***************
DNAunion: Wasn't it you who said elsewhere that you were equating life with
replication? If so, then you have already explained the origin of life:
"energy did some mixing of stuff in some unspecified way".
***************
>>>Chris Cogan: Saturation yields serious selection: From this point on, the
molecules that dominate will be the ones that are best at getting reproduced
in the crowded environment with limited resources out of which new copies of
themselves can be made. At this point, opportunities for predation become
important, as do variations that can take advantage of otherwise unused
factors in the environment, such as other substances and other sources of
energy.
****************
DNAunion: Agreed.
****************
>>>Chris Cogan: Further, since even the simplest catalytic process is
"code-driven," there is also no lack of code-driven processes, though this
is, as someone pointed out, in *addition* to having an energy source.
****************
DNAunion: I disagree. First, magnesium ions (and other inorganic ions)
catalyze a lot of reactions. Unless you are being extremely, extremely
flexible with the term "code-driven" - which you would need to justify if so
- then there is no such "code-driving" involved in the "simplest of catalytic
processes".
Second, the way the simplest things operate does not necessarily explain how
the most complex do (loosely, explaining that elevated water will fall does
not explain how a hydroelectric plant operates).
*****************
>>>Chris Cogan: All chemical reactions are ways of allowing energy to travel
"toward" equilibrium. The energy bound up in a molecule produced by the
application of energy from outside the vicinity is closer to the equilibrium
level than it was before it contributed to the production of the molecule. It
will go still closer to equilibrium when it is released later. Replicators
are a fairly good way to allow energy to pass "through" the biosphere (in and
then out) on the from the Sun and the Earth's core to open space. This is
because they use up energy in reproducing, and, if they evolve the ability to
actively *use* energy, if (in other words) they *live*, they use it up in the
process of living. Thus, living things are one of the ways the Earth has
developed to dissipate energy from itself and from the Sun (and from the
Moon's tidal effects).
********************
DNAunion: It almost sounds like you are saying the Earth *needs* life in
order to do something with its energy.
********************
>>>Chris Cogan: Since life itself is a pathway for energy flowing toward
equilibrium, life *depends* on the Second Law (or, more nearly exactly, on
the facts that we describe by means of the Second Law).
**************
DNAunion: I get the impression you emphasized the word *depends* as some sort
of a counter to my position: it is not. Of course life *depends* on the 2nd
law, and of course life doesn't violate the 2nd law. I have not said
otherwise.
Let me use yet another analogy. Even though a hydroelectric power plant
*depends* on gravity, and at no point during its operation does it violate
gravity, gravity alone cannot explain how the electricity comes out of the
plant. There are "coupling mechanisms" that couple the flow of water with
the flow of electric current (basically, falling water rotates a "water
wheel", which has gears, and those gears mesh with gears on a shaft, so the
rotation is transmitted to the shaft, which has wires attached such that they
are set in motion relative to stationary magnets - that is, they rotate
between the poles of the magnet - which induces an electric current in the
output wires). Can one rely on gravity alone to explain how a hydroelectric
plant produces electricity? No; the coupling mechanisms are required also
and must be included in any sort of a full explanation. Can one rely on
thermodynamics alone to explain how a cell functions? No; the coupling
mechanisms are required and must be included in any sort of a full
explanation. We can explain how the coupling mechanisms in the hydroelectric
power plant first arose, but how did those in cells first arise?
**************
Chris Cogan: If the entire Universe were already *at* "heat death"
equilibrium, there would be no life at all in it, because there would be no
"available" energy for it to use.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 11 2000 - 21:17:04 EST