[…]
>>>>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?
>>>Richard Wein: 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.
*****************
*****************
*****************
DNAunion: No apology needed: your acknowledging the error is sufficient (and
if you will remember, I did the same thing when I started posting here!).
*****************
*****************
*****************
>>>Richard Wein: 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]
*****************
*****************
*****************
DNAunion: But the “most damning” part of this quote of mine is,
“Since his and mine appear to me to be so similar”, and this is
taken a bit out of context (besides containing the qualifying words "appear"
and "similar"). Here is more of what was stated at that time by me in that
post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DNAunion: The last post of SEJones' on this that I read meshed with my
argument very well (depending on your frame of reference, it could be that my
argument meshed well with his). Therefore, I have been considering ours for
all practical purposes, equivalent. Maybe he holds to some of the Creationist
views that others have posted here and I just haven't read them. However, I
have found no problems (at least none that that jumped out at me) in SEJones'
material I have read. Again, I am considering our position on this to be, for
all practical purposes, identical.
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note all the qualifying I did in the first paragraph:
(1) “meshed with my argument very well”. I did not state they
were the same, just that they “meshed very well”.
(2) “I have been considering ours for all practical purposes,
equivalent.” I didn’t state I considered them *truly*
equivalent, but rather *for all practical purposes* equivalent.
(3) “Maybe he holds to some of the Creationist views that others have
posted here and I just haven't read them.” There’s a backdoor
(in case in another post SEJone’s actually did say something like,
“evolution violates the 2nd law”. But from my reading of
SEJones’ material, I doubt he ever did).
(4) “However, I have found no problems (at least none that that jumped
out at me) in SEJones' material I have read.” I did not state that
SEJones’ material was flawless, but rather I found no problems *at
least none that jumped out at me* in his material I read on the matter, which
basically boils down to the one post with quotes from “The Mystery of
Life’s Origin”.
(5) After all that qualifying, I finished up by repeating at least one of
them. “Again, I am considering our position on this to be, for all
practical purposes, identical.”
That is the background for my statement, “Since his and mine appear to
me to be so similar” that Richard referenced.
As I mentioned in that post, and mentioned elsewhere (presented in a moment),
I was basing the “equivalency” of our two positions on *one post*
of SEJones’, the one in which he quoted several times from “The
Mystery of Life’s Origin”. In that post, he presented material
concerning coupling mechanisms (the term used in “The Mystery of
Life’s Origin”, which is where I actually picked it up from) and
the apparent “chicken or egg” problem (basically, how were the
very first coupling mechanisms made if coupling mechanisms are needed to make
coupling mechanisms?).
*****************
*****************
*****************
>>>Richard Wein: 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]
************************
************************
************************
DNAunion: Again, any implication of my acceptance of a
“Creationist” position using the term is a bit out of context.
David himself is using the term and agreeing that “they” exist
and that in many instances “they” are used to decrease entropy.
He then wraps us by saying “they” are not a concern of the 2nd
law. That was the part I disagreed with, in a sense, because
“they” are a concern when the 2nd law *is applied to biology*.
If you are going to make that term stick to me from this, you need to make
the term stick to David as well – and more securely to him as I merely
replied to *HIS* usage. If David’s usage was acceptable, then my reply
to his statements cannot be faulted.
************************
************************
************************
>>>Richard Wein: 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]
************************
************************
************************
DNAunion: Again, not really what I said. I admitted to talking about
“stuff like” those things – not those things actually (the
double quotes indicate the phrase should not be taken literally). I drew
even more attention to the fact that the phrase should not be taken literally
by including the whole thing, phrase enclosed by double quotes, inside of
asterisks. Coupling mechanisms are *“stuff like”*
energy-conversion systems, but they are not the same.
Had your original statement been, “the creationist versions of the
Second Law to which I referred were the ones [that refer to] "code-driven
energy-conversion systems””, then I would have considered your
comment to not apply to me, and I would not have replied.
************************
************************
************************
>>>Richard Wein: 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]
************************
************************
************************
DNAunion: But this only shows that I was saying *YOUR* usage was acceptable
because YOU surrounded the term using double quotes. Again, unless you are
claiming that David’s statement - which I was directly equating the
shorthand, double-quoted word to – was incorrect, then how does this
reflect negatively on me?
************************
************************
************************
>>>Richard Wein:So I think my confusion is excusable.
************************
************************
************************
DNAunion: Agreed. And I did overreact.
Besides, I did the same thing when I started (for example, I remember
incorrectly attributing Chris’s statement that water was either
self-replicating or able to reproduce to FMAJ).
These errors point out one of the problems with this method of posting (as
opposed to ARN or other discussion forms). One doesn’t have *instant*
access to past posts – we can’t simply scroll up the page to the
previous post (which is sitting there with every word already visible) in a
chain, then the one before that, then the one before that. Using the method
of posting found here – unless there is something I don’t know
about - a person can’t easily reconstruct a history of who said what to
whom. It is possible, but still it is a bother and time consuming to do so.
************************
************************
************************
>>>Richard Wein: 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).
************************
************************
************************
DNAunion: They are not *required*. I myself stated that order increases
when a reservoir of water is drained through a narrow opening: the
“as-randomly-arranged-as-possible” water molecules form an
orderly vortex, without the need for a coupling mechanism. But one of my
points is that this type of increase in order cannot explain the origin of
life.
************************
************************
************************
>>>Richard Wein: But this is not a requirement of the SLOT, which says
nothing about the *mechanism* of entropy decrease.
************************
************************
************************
DNAunion: I have already stated several times that coupling mechanisms are
not part of the 2nd law. But when the 2nd law is applied to biology (as in
bioenergetics), coupling mechanisms are included.
************************
************************
************************
>>>Richard Wein: 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)
************************
************************
************************
DNAunion: This might be like equating the terms “nucleus” or
“species” in physics with the same terms in biology: they have
completely different meanings. What are the mechanisms the authors are
discussing? I am basically referring to physical structures, like ribosomes,
ATPases, protein pumps, etc. I don’t believe the authors you quoted
had any such mechanisms in mind. (There are other differences: for example,
the order their mechanisms generate is not specified: any and every output is
acceptable - unlike when a cell is involved - if a cell’s ribosomes
(coupling mechanisms) were to spit out random polymers, the cell would die).
************************
************************
************************
>>>Richard Wein: So, entropy *can* increase [the word increase should be
decrease] 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.
************************
************************
************************
DNAunion: They’re not just less complex, they are also less organized,
and less specified, and contain fewer (if any) interdependent functioning
parts, and cannot carry out complex activities, such as reproduction,
metabolism, or evolution. I doubt one requires a shelf-full of 1,000+ page
college texts to understand the “workings” of snowflakes.
************************
************************
************************
[…]
>>>>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".
>>>Richard Wein: So Stephen is your evil twin, is he? ;-)
************************
************************
************************
DNAunion: No, my evil twin is a hideous hybrid: what do you get when you
cross Stephen Jones with Richard Wein? Stephen didn’t say that energy
conversion mechanisms convert energy into reduced entropy: that was *your*
take on *his* position. Are you both in part my evil twin’s parents?
:-)
************************
************************
************************
[…]
>>>Richard Wein: (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!)
************************
************************
************************
DNAunion: Maybe someday. For now, I will just drop the claim that they are
basically equivalent, leaving it undetermined from my side. For the next
couple weeks, I will be short on time since I will be getting my two boys
both weekends, and during the week for Thanksgiving.. (In addition, I just
bought another 2 books on abiogenesis, 3 on cosmology, and 1 on evolution.
And I still haven’t finished the books I bought a couple months ago:
only about ¼ of the way through Darwin’s “Origin of
Species”).
************************
************************
************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 16 2000 - 14:56:40 EST