From: David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu
<David_Bowman@georgetowncollege.edu>
>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.
Thanks for correcting me. It's nice to know that arguing against the bogus
SLOT arguments hasn't been a complete waste of time. I've learnt a few
things in the process!
>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).
Yes, that's what I meant. I was just trying to drag in the word "convert"
because DNAUnion and Stephen insist that we do so!
>If so, then your
>characterisation is correct. But I hope we *all* agree that this is
>*insufficient* to constitute a compelling account of abiogenesis.
Yes.
>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.
Thanks. That's what I was getting at, in my clumsy way. ;-)
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 14 2000 - 05:31:12 EST