>>>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.
>>>David Bowman: I certainly hope not. But he can speak for himself.
******************************
DNAunion: Yeah, AFTER THE FACT. You guys (initiated by an error on
Richard's part) have already exchanged several public posts here that tie me
directly to comments, and then to interpretations of those comments also,
that are picked apart. Yet those comments are not even mine.
******************************
[…]
>>>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.
>>>David Bowman: Actually, the concept of converting energy into reduced
entropy is quite flawed.
******************************
DNAunion: Even though it was not my statement (NEITHER IT NOR THE STATEMENT
FROM WHICH RICHARD DERIVED IT, AS A MATTER OF FACT), I would like to say that
the explicit qualifying of the term convert using double quotation marks
("convert" and not simply convert) makes the statement acceptable.
Literally, no, energy is not converted into reduced entropy. Technically,
no, energy is not converted into reduced entropy. Scientifically speaking,
no, energy is not converted into reduce entropy.
But it can serve as a convenient shorthand method of saying what David said
later, "transform energy from one form into another form of *energy* that
have the collateral effect of reducing the entropy of some relevant
subsystem(s)". That would be quite a mouthful to say each time one wanted to
simply relate transformations of energy with a decrease in entropy. Using
the shorthand, loose and figurative term "convert" saves time, typing, and
redundancy, and does not confuse matters since no one should take the term
literally anyway.
*******************************
>>>David Bowman: It is kind of like the concept of converting hydrogen atoms
into time intervals (i.e. nonsensical).
********************************
DNAunion: What about a water clock? That's close. :-)
********************************
>>>David Bowman: 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).
*********************************
DNAunion: Let's see. The conversation between Richard and David has been
about my (well, *supposedly* my) statements, AND I have made statements
related to problems for the origin of life in terms of entropy. Here David
mentions "misdirected creationists" in relation to thermodynamic arguments
centering around abiogenesis. Is David referring to me as a "misdirected
creationist", or is this just an example of my over-sensitivity to such a
possibility manifesting itself?
**********************************
>>>RW: (I suspect the word "convert" is misleading, because no energy is
lost in the process.
>>>David Wein: If it is supposed to be read as literally as above, then it
is not only very misleading, it is very wrong.
***********************************
DNAunion: I think I am starting to see one communications problem - I
thought it was limited to others' interpretations of *my* material, but it
apparently extends much further. Richard questioned his own use of the word
"convert" even though he enclosed it in double quotes, and David here puts
the literal meaning ahead of any possible non-literal interpretations despite
the double quotes.
Both Richard and David seem to basically disregard the enclosing double
quotes around words or phrases and to take the word/phrase literally anyway
(or at least push the literal interpretation to the foreground and to
disregard as much as possible any possible non-literal interpretations).
Shoot, this term and usage here aren't even mine and I'm defending them!
Double quotes surrounding a word or phrase are meant to draw attention to the
fact that the term/phrase has some special, unusual meaning in that
particular instance. "Convert" does not mean convert. In fact, my college
text, "The Rinehart Handbook for Writers", states that the use of double
quotes when the word does NOT have a special or unusual meaning *CAUSES
CONFUSION*. So if Richard intended the term to be taken literally, then he
caused undo confusion. If he intended the term to be taken figuratively,
then he should not have second guessed its appropriateness.
***********************************
>>>RW: But perhaps "free energy" is converted into non-free energy. Could
David please confirm or correct this?)
************************************
DNAunion: See, here Richard reverses the correct usage of the double quotes.
He should have written, "But perhaps free energy [no quotes] is converted
into "non-free energy" [with quotes]".
************************************
[…]
>>>David Bowman: 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).
************************************
DNAunion: Well, I first disagree that Richard is even talking about my
statements! And I disagree that I would have interpreted "my" statement as
Richard did. If I did use the term convert to mean converting energy into
reduced entropy, I would *not* have used it literally and *would* have
qualified it by using double quotes as a shorthand method (saving the time
and effort required to provide all the details needed to explain the concept
accurately).
Note that first, I don't blame David for any of the mix up or the follow ups
- he was simply replying to Richard's statements (Richard's statements are
where the actual errors crept in). Second, it is nice to hear that David
gives people the benefit of the doubt: that is, even if those words were
mine, he would not have tried to force a problematic interpretation into my
mouth (as some others might).
************************************
>>>David Bowman: My suspicion as to the usage of the phrase is as a
mechanism or process that usefully stores energy inmolecules 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 14 2000 - 22:46:57 EST