DNAunion: I have slightly modified this from the original sent directly and
privately to Richard. AOL gave me a warning that I had only a minute before
it automatically shut down, and I have no way of avoiding that or extending
the amount of time available (this occurs when I log in from work). So I
sent my "rough draft" to Richard, allowed AOL to close down, opened AOL back
up again, found the e-mail I sent to Richard, and then turned that rough
draft into a finished product. You guys get the real deal, Richard got
(originally, at least) the work in progress copy.
PS: all modifications are noted below, and they affect only about 5 sentences
total.
[...]
>>>DNAunion: "The Moon in motion tends to follow a straight-line path,
according to Newton's First Law, the law of inertia. The fact that it follows
a curved
path meant to Newton that a force must be pulling it out of its straight-line
path, just as the key described in Section 5-7 is deflected from its
straight-line path. (Melvin Merken, Physical Science with Modern
Applications: Fifth Edition, Saunders College Publishing, 1993, p82-84)
>>>Richard Wein: Same as above. The tendency of the Moon itself is to fly
off in a straight path. But its behavior differs from its tendency because
the gravitational affects of the Earth influence the Moon's motion.
I say the the word "tend" is being used here in the same sense that I've
described above. It refers to the effect of just one particular law (or
force) which is acting on the object, while ignoring others. If we use the
word in this sense, then the Moon has more than one tendency. According to
the Law of Inertia, the Moon tends to follow a straight-line path. However,
according to the Law of Gravity, it tends to fall towards the center of the
Earth.
**********************
DNAunion: Yes. We can take an individual tendency of an object and examine
it, and this tendency may not be the same as the object's behavior.
And even though this satellite example does not match my see-saw analogy (two
tendencies but only 1 item), we could still see one tendency overcoming
another. If the tendency that inertia imposes on the object *overcomes* that
of gravity (if a drastic increase in forward speed in the same direction
occurs suddenly, for example, by the firing of booster rockets), the object
is ejected out into space in a straight-line path. And if the tendency
gravity imposes on the object *overcomes* that of inertia (if a drastic
reduction in speed occurs suddenly, for example, by the firing of retro
rockets), the object falls towards Earth.
**********************
>>>Richard Wein: In other words, to say "the Moon in motion tends to follow
a straight-line path, according to Newton's First Law" is a shorthand way of
saying "the
behaviour of the moon in the absence of any laws other than Newton's First
Law would be to follow a straight-line path".
When you say that a system has a tendency to act in a particular way, all
you're saying is that there is a law (or force) which *would* cause the
system to behave in that way, in the hypothetical absence of other laws (or
forces). But this is a hypothetical statement which is contrary to fact. In
fact, other laws (or forces) *do* exist.
With this understanding of what we mean by tendency, let's return to the
SLOT. We can now say that the tendency of an isolated system, according to
the SLOT, is to increase in entropy.
And what about non-isolated systems, which are the ones we're interested in
here. You apparently want us to accept that non-isolated systems have a
tendency to increase in entropy. But the SLOT says no such thing, unless
there is some implicit qualifier, as in the Moon passage above.
***************************
DNAunion: I disagree (perhaps David will help settle this). I believe that
even an open system has a *tendency* towards greater overall disorder (such
as the hot cup of tea cooling off: the tea's entropy decreases but the
surroundings' entropy increases to a greater (or at least equal) degree), but
that not all such systems in fact experience an increase in disorder because
of something "out of the oridinary" that influences the system (in cells, for
example, there are those coupling mechanisms that help increase order
locally).
That is, in general, if you leave things to themselves, with or without a
flow of *undirected* energy, they *tend* to become more disordered.
***************************
>>>Richard Wein: I suppose you could have in mind the qualifier "in the
absence of a surrounding environment with which the system can exchange
energy". But that's just equivalent to the statement above about isolated
systems, and we're not dealing with an isolated system in abiogenesis.
********************
DNAunion: In a sense we could be.
[several not-well-stated sentences sent to Richard in the original deleted].
[BEGIN new material not in original sent to Richard]
For example, my college cell biology text explained how cells harness
available energy to maintain themselves above thermodynamic equilibrium.
However, more needs to be said.
[END new material not in original sent to Richard]
FROM MY PERSONAL NOTES>
The above [quote from my college cell biology text] is a legitimate appeal to
open-system thermodynamics. But it is also based upon the assumption of
preexisting cellular processes and machinery. The solution presented to the
thermodynamic struggle associated
with preexisting life's maintenance does not provide any information on how
inanimate matter could have first obtained the ability to overcome the
thermodynamic drive toward equilibrium and toward increasing disorder.
But it does indirectly mention a potential problem the transition from
non-life to life would have faced: that is, it supports an argument already
made. A flow of matter and energy is required for life to exist: no one
denies that point. But as was mentioned elsewhere, a sufficient source of
energy is not necessarily sufficient to produce useful, biologically-relevant
work. Without the ability to properly harness the available energy (see the
discussion concerning the "need" for coupling mechanisms), a "prebiotic cell"
would be a closed thermodynamic system, marooned and isolated despite being
afloat in the middle of a vast ocean of potentially-usable energy. And as
the above quote stated, "If the cell were a closed system, all its reactions
would gradually run to equilibrium and the cell would come inexorably to a
state of minimum free energy, after which no further changes could occur, no
work could be accomplished, and life would cease." Consequently,
thermodynamics does pose a problem for the purely-natural origin of life, and
it is legitimate for one to ask for solutions, and to critique those
presented.
"... one cannot simply dismiss the problem of the origin of organization and
complexity in biological systems by a vague appeal to open-system,
non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The mechanisms responsible for the emergence
and maintenance of coherent (organized) states must be defined." (Charles B.
Thaxton [Ph.D. in Chemistry], Walter L. Bradley [Ph.D. in Materials Science],
Roger L. Olsen [BS in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Geochemistry], The Mystery of
Life's Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, 1984, p117)
attached mail follows:
[...]
>>>DNAunion: "The Moon in motion tends to follow a straight-line path,
according to Newton's First Law, the law of inertia. The fact that it follows
a curved
path meant to Newton that a force must be pulling it out of its straight-line
path, just as the key described in Section 5-7 is deflected from its
straight-line path. (Melvin Merken, Physical Science with Modern
Applications: Fifth Edition, Saunders College Publishing, 1993, p82-84)
>>>Richard Wein: Same as above. The tendency of the Moon itself is to fly
off in a straight path. But its behavior differs from its tendency because
the gravitational affects of the Earth influence the Moon's motion.
I say the the word "tend" is being used here in the same sense that I've
described above. It refers to the effect of just one particular law (or
force) which is acting on the object, while ignoring others. If we use the
word in this sense, then the Moon has more than one tendency. According to
the Law of Inertia, the Moon tends to follow a straight-line path. However,
according to the Law of Gravity, it tends to fall towards the center of the
Earth.
**********************
DNAunion: Yes. We can take an individual tendency of an object and examine
it, and this tendency may not be the same as the object's behavior.
And even though this satellite example does not match my see-saw analogy (two
tendencies but only 1 item), we could still see one tendency overcoming
another. If the tendency that inertia imposes on the object *overcomes* that
of gravity (if a drastic increase in forward speed in the same direction
occurs suddenly, for example, by the firing of booster rockets), the object
is ejected out into space in a straight-line path. And if the tendency
gravity imposes on the object *overcomes* that of inertia (if a drastic
reduction in speed occurs suddenly, for example, by the firing of retro
rockets), the object falls towards Earth.
**********************
>>>Richard Wein: In other words, to say "the Moon in motion tends to follow
a straight-line path, according to Newton's First Law" is a shorthand way of
saying "the
behaviour of the moon in the absence of any laws other than Newton's First
Law would be to follow a straight-line path".
When you say that a system has a tendency to act in a particular way, all
you're saying is that there is a law (or force) which *would* cause the
system to behave in that way, in the hypothetical absence of other laws (or
forces). But this is a hypothetical statement which is contrary to fact. In
fact, other laws (or forces) *do* exist.
With this understanding of what we mean by tendency, let's return to the
SLOT. We can now say that the tendency of an isolated system, according to
the SLOT, is to increase in entropy.
And what about non-isolated systems, which are the ones we're interested in
here. You apparently want us to accept that non-isolated systems have a
tendency to increase in entropy. But the SLOT says no such thing, unless
there is some implicit qualifier, as in the Moon passage above.
***************************
DNAunion: I disagree (perhaps David will help settle this). I believe that
even an open system has a *tendency* towards greater overall disorder (such
as the hot cup of tea cooling off: the tea's entropy decreases but the
surroundings' entropy increases to a greater (or at least equal) degree), but
that not all such systems in fact experience an increase in disorder because
of something "out of the oridinary" that influences the system (in cells, for
example, there are those coupling mechanisms that help increase order
locally). In general, if you leave things to themselves, with or without a
flow of undirected energy, they *tend* to become more disordered.
***************************
>>>Richard Wein: I suppose you could have in mind the qualifier "in the
absence of a surrounding environment with which the system can exchange
energy". But that's just equivalent to the statement above about isolated
systems, and we're not dealing with an isolated system in abiogenesis.
********************
DNAunion: In a sense we could be. The main counter argument using
open-system thermodynamics has been that the Sun provided the Earth with a
continuous flow of energy that powered the local decrease in entropy. But
the first cells could not have used that source of energy because the
photosynthetic machinery is not considered to be prebiotically plausible. IF
the Sun was *the* source of energy that drove the decrease in entropy in the
first cells, but photosynthetic mechanisms were not available to harness that
source of energy, then we would be talking about, *for all practical
purposes*, the Earth and cells as isolated systems.
FROM MY PERSONAL NOTES>
The above is a legitimate appeal to open-system thermodynamics. But it is
also based upon the assumption of preexisting cellular processes and
machinery. The solution presented to the thermodynamic struggle associated
with preexisting life’s maintenance does not provide any information on
how inanimate matter could have first obtained the ability to overcome the
thermodynamic drive toward equilibrium and toward increasing disorder.
But it does indirectly mention a potential problem the transition from
non-life to life would have faced: that is, it supports an argument already
made. A flow of matter and energy is required for life to exist: no one
denies that point. But as was mentioned elsewhere, a sufficient source of
energy is no necessarily sufficient to produce useful, biologically-relevant
work. Without the ability to properly harness the available energy (see the
discussion concerning the need for coupling mechanisms), a “prebiotic
cell” would be a closed thermodynamic system, marooned and isolated
despite being afloat in the middle of a vast ocean of potentially-usable
energy. And as the above quote stated, “If the cell were a closed
system, all its reactions would gradually run to equilibrium and the cell
would come inexorably to a state of minimum free energy, after which no
further changes could occur, no work could be accomplished, and life would
cease.” Consequently, thermodynamics does pose a p
roblem for the purely-natural origin of life, and it is legitimate for one to
ask for solutions, and to critique those presented.
“… one cannot simply dismiss the problem of the origin of
organization and complexity in
biological systems by a vague appeal to open-system, non-equilibrium
thermodynamics. The
mechanisms responsible for the emergence and maintenance of coherent
(organized) states must
be defined.” (Charles B. Thaxton [Ph.D. in Chemistry], Walter L.
Bradley [Ph.D. in Materials
Science], Roger L. Olsen [BS in Chemistry, Ph.D. in Geochemistry], The
Mystery of Life’s Origin:
Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis and Stanley, 1984, p117)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 21 2000 - 13:45:33 EST