I'm afraid I broke down and gave in to the temptation to browse the Calvin
archives, to see if DNAUnion had resonded to my last post. ;-)
From: DNAunion@aol.com
>>>>Richard Wein: 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".
>
>
>DNAunion: Yep, Richard, you're totally confused: but not by me -it's your
>own doing. I have been bringing up *coupling mechanisms*, not *energy
>conversion mechanisms*. Are you sure you are not talking about someone
>else's term here? Huh?
OK. On checking the archives, I see that you did not use the term
"energy conversion mechanisms". So I apologise for attributing the term to
you. However, I would point out the following mitigating factors:
1. This term is widely used by Stephen Jones and other creationists who make
arguments from the SLOT.
2. You yourself have stated that your argument is similar to Stephen's:
[From: DNAunion@aol.com. Date: Fri Nov 10 2000 - 22:19:52 EST ]
Now, the way I see it, unless one goes out of the way a bit to avoid the
following conclusion, you are calling SEJones' argument about thermodynamics
in relation to the origin of life a "Creationist Law of Thermodynamics".
Since his and mine appear to me to be so similar, then I consider you to be
calling my "version" of thermodynamics Creationist also. I feel this is
unwarranted, especially since you (and our other opponents) won't even
discuss the topic we are.
[end quote]
3. You have responded to several previous posts in which Dave and I have
referred to "energy conversion mechanisms", without raising any objection.
For example (one of many):
[From: DNAunion@aol.com. Date: Sun Nov 12 2000 - 01:55:08 EST ]
>>>David Bowman: Also, it is a simple demonstrable fact that many instances
of local entropy decrease are *not* accomplished via such an "energy
conversion system"; many other instances of local entropy decrease *are*
accomplished with such a system that itself spontaneously forms in situ; and
some instances *do* require a previously constructed such system. Sometimes
such a "energy conversion system" is used for the production of a local
*increase* in entropy. Whether or not such a system is needed for a given
process or not is a function of the particular process at hand. It is *not*
a concern of the 2nd law.
*******************
DNAunion: Yes, but it is a concern when the second law is applied to
biology.
*******************
[end quote]
4. You made a statement linking "energy conversion systems" to
"coupling mechanisms":
[From: DNAunion@aol.com. Date: Fri Nov 10 2000 - 22:19:52 EST ]
>>>Richard Wein: If you'd read my post more carefully, you'd have seen that
the creationist versions of the Second Law to which I referred were the ones
referring to stuff like "code-driven energy-conversion systems".
***********************
DNAunion: I continually refer to *"stuff like"* code-driven
energy-conversion systems in my discussions on relating thermodynamics to
the origin of life (in the form of "coupling mechanisms").
***********************
[end quote]
5. You yourself seem to consider "convert" to be an acceptable shorthand
term for the concept that you have in mind:
[From: DNAunion@aol.com. Date: Tue Nov 14 2000 - 22:46:06 EST
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.
[end quote]
So I think my confusion is excusable.
Anyway, exactly the same argument that I made about "energy conversion
systems" (as I interpreted the term) applies equally to coupling mechanisms.
Yes, if I understand correctly, coupling mechanisms *are* required in order
for entropy to decrease (Dave, please correct me if I'm wrong). But this is
not a requirement of the SLOT, which says nothing about the *mechanism*
of entropy decrease. Furthermore, it does not prevent abiogenesis, because
coupling mechanisms *do* exist in abiotic systems, e.g. in weather systems:
"...to elucidate the coupling mechanism between the Kuroshio/subarctic front
variability and atmospheric storm-track variability."
(http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/iprc_science/IPRC_III_climate.html)
So, entropy *can* increase in abiotic systems, as has already been
discussed, e.g. in crystals, snowflakes, tornados, etc. You reject
these counterexamples on the grounds that they're much less complex than
living organisms. But so what? The SLOT says nothing about complexity. It
applies no more or less to complex systems than it does to simple ones.
[...]
>>>>Richard Wein: DNAUnion probably wants to know *which* chemical reactions
>are (or might be) involved in abiogenesis.
>
>
>DNAunion: Finally, he's back to DNAunion and has left his talks about my
>apparently evil twin who says things about "energy conversion mechanisms"
>that "convert" energy into reduced entropy".
So Stephen is your evil twin, is he? ;-)
>>>>Richard Wein: 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.
>
>
>DNAunion: You are not paying attention to me, are you? Why do you bring my
>name up so much in these posts if you are discussing something differnt
than
>I am?
>
>
>I have made it clear that I am not discussing thermodynamics *alone* - I am
>talking about applying thermodynamics to life. Two fields involved here,
>count them, one...two. You even concede this by qualifying your statement
>with, "as far as the SLOT is concerned", but then head right back to plain
>old thermodynamics (apparently implying that I am wrong in the process),
>right where you like to start, hover, and end your discussions that
>*supposedly* deal with what I am discussing.
But the SLOT does not distinguish between living and non-living systems. It
applies equally to both.
By the way, just so there's no mistake, I didn't "concede" anything by my
qualifying statement above, if by that you mean that I've changed my
position. My only claim with regard to the SLOT and abiogenesis is that the
SLOT does not prevent (or act against) the decrease in entropy required by
abiogenesis. This seems relate to your recent discussion with Paul
Robson. You seem to think that some evolutionists consider the SLOT
*sufficient* to account for the decrease in entropy required by abiogenesis.
But I have seen no evolutionist in this forum make such a claim. To be sure
there's no doubt, let me say clearly, once and for all, I DO NOT CONSIDER
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS TO BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
DECREASE IN ENTROPY REQUIRED BY ABIOGENESIS.
So, if you're only arguing that the SLOT is not sufficient to account for
the decrease in entropy required by abiogenesis, then we have no quarrel (on
this point). But, in that case, I believe you are confusing people by
arguing against a straw man, and by suggesting that your argument is similar
to Stephen's.
(If you still think your argument is similar to Stephen's, I suggest you
take a look at Stephen's web page:
http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqlslot.html. I think you will quickly
change your mind!)
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 : Wed Nov 15 2000 - 13:22:50 EST