Re: Phil Johnson on the Second Law of Thermodynamics

From: David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu
Date: Mon Nov 13 2000 - 17:34:59 EST

  • Next message: DNAunion@aol.com: "Re: Phil Johnson on the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

    Regarding Richard's comments:

    RW>Finally, as I'm trying to describe the situation in DNAUnion's rather
    >confusing terms, let me try to use his term "energy conversion mechanism".
    >Since the SLOT deals only with energy and entropy, I assume that, by "energy
    >conversion mechanism", DNAUnion means something which "converts" energy into
    >reduced entropy.

    I certainly hope not. But he can speak for himself.

    RW>Well, the something that does this is the energy-driven
    >processes that I mentioned earlier, such as chemical reactions. If you want
    >to go to a lower level of explanation, then it's the primary physical
    >(nuclear) forces which cause chemical reactions.

    It is true that physical forces are responsible for chemical reactions,
    but those physical forces are *not* nuclear. Nuclear forces are
    responsible for nuclear reactions. Electromagnetic forces are the
    cuplrits responsible for chemical reactions, and it is essentially the
    details of how they are exerted on the electrons of atoms, molecules
    & ions that are relevant. Another very important relevant feature is
    the fact that these electrons are fermions and so obey the Pauli
    exclusion principle.

    RW> DNAUnion probably wants to
    >know *which* chemical reactions are (or might be) involved in abiogenesis.
    >Well, so do I! But that's outside the scope of the SLOT. It's sufficient, as
    >far as the SLOT is concerned, to know that there *are* processes which
    >"convert" energy into reduced entropy.

    Actually, the concept of converting energy into reduced entropy is quite
    flawed. It is kind of like the concept of converting hydrogen atoms into
    time intervals (i.e. nonsensical). But I think I know what you are
    trying to get at. Perhaps you mean processes that transform energy from
    one form into another form of *energy* that have the collateral effect
    of reducing the entropy of some relevant subsystem(s). If so, then your
    characterisation is correct. But I hope we *all* agree that this is
    *insufficient* to constitute a compelling account of abiogenesis. All it
    shows is that a particular thermodynamic no-go condition is met which
    merely allows us to further consider the subject without rejecting the
    whole notion of abiogenesis out-of-hand on thermodynamic grounds
    (contrary to many misdirected creationist attempts to make a slam dunk on
    this point).

    >(I suspect the word "convert" is misleading, because no energy is lost in
    >the process.

    If it is supposed to be read as literally as above, then it is not only
    very misleading, it is very wrong.

    RW>But perhaps "free energy" is converted into non-free energy.
    >Could David please confirm or correct this?)

    Although I'm not sure just what is really supposed to be meant by the
    phrase "energy conversion mechanism", it is true that the normal
    operation of the 2nd law in a context where there is a system that is in
    thermal contact with its surroundings (so heat flow across the boundary
    between the system and the surroundings is allowed), and those
    surroundings are held at a fixed temperature via external means, and the
    system is not subject to any disequilibrating forces from the outside,
    *then* the system's (relevant kind of) excess free energy *is* converted
    into "non-free" energy. Except we do not call this energy that it is
    converted into "non-free" energy. The usual terminology for it is
    *dissipated* energy or *unavailable* energy.

    I suspect that DNAunion may disagree with Richard's guess as to the
    meaning of the phrase (but that's because I like to give people the
    benefit of the doubt when in doubt). My suspicion as to the usage of
    the phrase is as a mechanism or process that usefully stores energy in
    molecules for later metabolic use (but I could be quite wrong, too,
    with this guess). The energy source for this stored energy is,
    presumably, either some sort of generalized chemical "food", or the
    relatively low entropy/high energy photons of sunlight, both of which
    are not typically found in a cell's environment in a form that the
    various metabolic processes of the cell can use directly and successfully
    carry out their functions.

    David Bowman
    David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 13 2000 - 17:37:18 EST