The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Author: Dr. Philip is a physicist with a PhD in Quantum-nuclear Physics. He also has a ThD in apologetics, DSc in alternative medicines, and a DNYS in naturopathy. At present he is working on his PhD in Biblical archeology. He is the senior-most apologist in India, and the founder of the largest apologetics distance seminary in the world.
He is a founder and life-member of the Indian Association of Physics Teachers, a life-member of the Indian Physics Association, a voting life-member of the Creation Research Society, and several other professional societies. Read more from himSince heat is one of the most common forms of energy in the Universe, and since its action can be seen on bodies everywhere, the science of thermo-dynamics (heat-motion) received very early development in physics.
Entropy is a mathematical measure of disorder. This means that any work in the Universe results in a net increase in disorder in the Universe, so that if the Universe is left untouched, it will eventually reach the state of maximum disorder, a state of death known as the Entropy Death.
While many people are under the impression that the Universe is “evolving”, actually it is running down every moment like a clock wound up some times back. Just as a clock moves towards an eventual standstill if it is left to itself after winding it once, the Universe is also moving to that state where all order will be lost.
This is the reason why clothes fade in sunlight. The ultraviolet light destroys chemicals when it randomly interacts with chemical dyes. The same is the reason why medicines have expiry dates and why it says that the cap should be closed tight and that the medicine should be kept away from direct sunlight. The natural tendency of matter and energy, when they randomly interact with each other, is to increase entropy by destroying order. There is no exception to it.
While the Universe as a whole is running down, it is possible for isolated segments of it to increase its order by creating a greater disorder outside itself. This is again an application of the second law of thermodynamics. A good example is an air-conditioner. Even when the tendency of a room is to become hot, an air-conditioner can keep the inside of the room cold by throwing the heat from inside to the atmosphere outside. The total heat dissipated into air by the air-conditioner in that process is greater than the amount of heat it takes for throwing outside because a lot of heat is generated through the air-conditioner’s own working.
In other words, if a mechanism is available, to isolate a body (insulation of the room) from external heat, and if a mechanism is available to pull out heat from inside this isolated body (the insulated room) to throw it outside the system, then a room can be cooled. This is not a violation of the second law, but rather an application of the law using a very cleverly contrived system.
Taking heat and throwing it out of the insulated room is the simplest of simple cases (where one can create order in the face of the second law) but it does explain the basics. Here are the things needed if order is to result in the face of the second law:
1. A carefully contrived mechanism to isolate the system (room) that prevents random external energy (heat) from entering it.
2. A carefully contrived mechanism to draw heat from inside and transfer it to a body outside, which would then radiate it (through the radiator and the air-cooling or water cooling system).
The most simple living cell needs a million systems more complex than the above to sustain it. The information coded on DNA and the associated RNA, enzymes, and numerous other entities do this work. No amount of expounding can explain the complexity of the mechanism needed to sustain life in the presence of the second law of thermodynamics which would reduce everything to mere disjoint atoms.
Summary: When matter and energy interact freely, without interference, and blindly, entropy (disorder) always increases irrespective of whether the system is open or closed. A carefully contrived system, and a complex mechanism is needed anywhere for creating order out of chaos. Where there is a system, information is needed to drive that system, such as the information that resides on DNA.
No amount of speculation, guesswork, or wishful thinking can do away with the necessity of a complex system if one has to create order out of chaos in the face of the second law of thermodynamics.
[Here is the article I promised. Try to pick holes in it, if you can. I might not be able to respond fast at times becasue I will be traveling for a full two weeks]
[Dr. Johnson C. Philip is a physicist, with expertise inter alia in Quantum-nuclear Physics, and has worked extensively on the inner quark-structure of Protons and Neutrons. He has also specialized in Christian Apologetics, Biblical Archeology, Journalism, Alternative Medicines, and several other fields]
No related posts.
Johnson,
I did enjoy reading this. Thanks.
I have one point to make now.
Somewhere up a mountain right now there are a few droplets (or molecules) of water in the process of changing from a liquid to a solid. As they do so they are losing energy, and losing entropy as they become crystalline in structure. This is a system that is creating order(crystals) "in the face of the second law". There is nothing contrived about this setup; it is entirely natural.
What has hapened to the previous comments in other posts?
[...] know the game) to support their religious beliefs. But Johnson has come up with a whopper here (see The Second Law of Thermodynamics). He wishes to use the Second law of Thermodynamics to support his religious ideas of creationism! [...]
@Simonster
Thank you very much for your comment. In a brief article, obviously, some points would be left out.
The conversion of water droplets into ice does not result in anything NEW. Water remains water. H2O remains H2O. By virtue of its physical and chemical properties, the crystalline structure is coded into H2O. Thus no nothing beyond its physyo-chemical properties is taking place here.
Cooling a room, on the other hand, is not something coded into the bricks and mortars that go into making the room.
Johnson C. Philip
Friends, I might not be able to respond for next 48 hours because I will be traveling.
Meanwhile, you might enjoy some of my pure technical writings at:
http://kalkion.com/category/author/shastri-jc-philip
Johnson,
I don’t understand why I have to spell it out to you:
Does the example I gave in post 1 create order from a more disordered state?
YES.
Does the example in post 1 need contrived isolation?
NO.
Does the example in post 1 need a contrived mechanism?
NO.
Checkmate. Game over!
It is annoying that the comments have disappeared. Also on my other computer not even the five comments that have appeared since are displayed. Nonetheless on with the show.
Simon’s points are quite valid and need answering but I think there is an even bigger hole in the logic here. The author states:
This does not state that abiogenesis is impossible but rather that life itself is impossible (which would by implication rule out abiogenesis of course).
We know that life exists and Johnson has already acknowledged that there are no known exceptions to the second law, we can conclude that life does not contradict the second law. It seems that all the work is still ahead of Johnson to demonstrate how life is possible according to the second law but abiogenesis is not.
I am a thousand kilometers away from my office, with only about 12 hours of electricity per day avaialble mostly when you do not need it or when you cannot use for surfing the net.
On top of that, the net here seems to connect for a maximum of only 4 hours a day, at times not in my hand, and at occassions when one is likely not to get up from sleep. Thus my posts are likely to be less frequent for some days.
Coming now to Simon,
Your last comment shows that you are here for some kine of a competition. That is not the purpose of my posts here. For me this is an intellectual discussion of ideas where each party should be open and willing to revise his stand if reason and logic shows that he was wrong. This is not competition, but intellectual growth.
It is also becoming obvious to me that you do not have a grasp of the second law of thermodynamics. Even if my statements contradict yours, you exclaim “thanks for confirming what I said”. Thus — regrettably — I need to end our mutual discussion on the second law here.
Johnson C. Philip
@Ian
Thank you very much Ian for the following quotation from my post:
I will give a similar statement for Abiogensis, before you become too excited with the feeling that I was unable to say anything on abiogenesis. Here is the statement
Even the simplest known living cell is millions of times more complex than the atoms that compose them. If abiogenesis is the process that produced the first living cell, then the proponents of abiogenesis need to tell the following
What was the mechnanism that took the atoms and produced the infinitely complex living cell, and that also when the second law negates that kind of thing from happening through random processes.
Johnson C. Philip
I………I’m just speechless. Let us know when you get your supposed evisceration of the laws of physics pulished, Johnson. Till then, have fun conversing with yourself. Lol.
To directly answer your question as stated: natural selection.
To address one big problem with your statement: processes are not random, they are predictable pretty much by definition. If you drop a rock and it will fall towards the earth every time (via the process of gravity). The same applies to heat transfer, convection currents, chemical reactions, and the rest of it. All that has to happen is for some configuration of stuff capable of producing some form of copy of itself within this set of rules to appear and everything else is taken care of. Entropy doesn’t get in the way of rocks falling every time or chemical reactions taking place.
Finally do you retract your previous statement or stand by the claim that life itself is impossible?
@Ian
I did not retract anything. I tend to discuss one point at a time, and therefore please do not assume that I retracted those points that I did not mention.
Thanks for your clear cut answer. You say that natural selection is the mechanism that made possible abiogenesis. Since abiogenesis is chemistry and physics in operation, what law of chemistry and physics is this “natural selection”.
I have studied chemistry and physics all my life but never heard of this law or mechanism in physics or chemistry. Please enlighten me.
Perhaps you might want to mention a book or two that chronicles the discovery of “The Law of Natural Selection in Physics and Chemistry”
I do not assume you retracted it, I am asking IF you wish to retract it. The reason I ask is that your statement as written states that life is impossible – not abiogenesis specifically but life full stop. If you believe that then the rest of the discussion is rather pointless. If you don’t believe that then retracting or modifying your statement is necessary to bring it in line with your beliefs.
Apparently subtlety is a lost cause. Let me try it another way: The original form of life almost certainly wasn’t a fully formed modern day cell. You asked how we got to complex cells and the vast majority of the answer to that question is natural selection. In other words if you assume we went from non-life to complex modern cells in one step then you are arguing against a form of abiogenesis that no-one is arguing for.
Its a very obscure idea from the deep dark depths of science which almost no-one has heard of…. I think its called probability?
@Ian
I do not see the statement “life is impossible” that you attribute to me. Perhaps you have rephrased one of my statements? Perhaps you have taken a fragment out of my statement which reads
If yes, there I do not way what you with to imply that I say. Please read it carefully once again.
Coming now to probability, which you suggest as the mechanism of natural selection that gave rise to abiogenesis:
Well, for me the mathematics of probability has been the stuff of everyday discussion from the days of college or even much before. Thus at least for me it is no more obscure than the back of my palm!!
If probability theory is appliced to the places were a lot of chemicals and energy were available, then it says that everything would break down instead of building up. Probability is a twin of second law of thermodynamics and together they guarantee to destroy order, and not vice versa. Only a comlex mechanism can help order to come forth!!
So perhaps you can find something other than “probability” to explain your “natural selection” that helped abiogenesis to take place!!!
Johnson C. Philip
Since you like to deal with one point at a time, let’s get this first point sorted first:
You are saying that such a complex system as life shouldn’t be able to exist because the second law should reduce everything to “mere disjoint atoms”. How is it that life exists right now if that is the case?
@Ian
yes, it is better to handle one point at a time. But that does not mean that we should abandon the single point that we were already discussing. Let us complete that discussion first — rather than switching over to another topic.
Can I have an answer to the last question I asked?
Johnson,
You are cleverly steering this topic away from the second law of thermodynamics, despite this being the title. That abiogenesis is but a theory is irrelevant. You need to come to terms with your fallacious understanding of the second law, as I have shown in post 6.
I agree with Simon. This discussion started with you claiming that abiogenesis by natural means is impossible according to the second law. You then gave an argument that amounted to the claim that life itself is impossible according to the second law. I don’t think this is what you meant to claim but you haven’t tried to clarify that yet and therefore we should address that issue first. Once we have narrowed down just what exactly you claim is impossible we can then go about evaluating your claim.
@Simon
Simon, I will not be discussing the second law of thermodynamics or any related topic with you. Consider it my weakness that I cannot discuss a subject with those who do not understand it.
@Ian
Ian, I asked you a question. A straightforward question. It is related to the second law of thermodynamics.
If you can come up with an answer, then give it. If not, we can end our discussion here because I very well know why you are trying to change the subject. I find it diffcult to go on with people who wish to change the subject when they find it impossible to give an answer. This has been a standard technique in the arsenal of anti-creationists. They simply shout lounder when they have no answer.
By the way, if you guys (yes, both of you) have any more of those “profound” book suggestions then you are welcome to list them here. Only thing, do not let it happen this time that one suggests some “key” books and the other one comes and says that they are useless.
Simonster writes:
I have one point to make now.
Somewhere up a mountain right now there are a few droplets (or molecules) of water in the process of changing from a liquid to a solid. As they do so they are losing energy, and losing entropy as they become crystalline in structure. This is a system that is creating order(crystals) “in the face of the second law”. There is nothing contrived about this setup; it is entirely natural.
I would say the following Simonster. Crystal order results from the withdrawal of a heat energy, whereas evolutionists argue that evolution sustains itself by the addition of heat energy from a star. Crystalline structure then is not really a fitting example to bolster your case. Also….what is the kind of order you meet in a crystal? It is merely periodic – repeating and not complex, containing very little information. What do you think is more difficult to describe in terms of informaion content? Liquid water or a snowflake? I would say it is the liquid water. Try to break a crystal….the smaller crystals are physically and chemically identical to the original. When an organic molecule is split up, lesser molecules appear, and part of the original information is lost. Is it not a fundamental difference?
good night from Prague
Ask it again so I don’t answer the wrong one. Then I will answer it to the best of my abilities on the condition that you then address this question of mine (which I have asked several times before):
What is it that the second law specifically forbids about abiogenesis? Your current claim is that the second law forbids life full stop but then you acknowledge that we know life exists and that we know of no exceptions to the second law so there is a contradiction here that needs resolving.
@Ian
Ian, there is no use talking in cirlces. You know what I had asked, you were giving honest answers, and then comes this Simon guy who created a distraction — and everyone knows why he did this. Immediatly you forgot the question that we were discussing!! It is surely not a lapse of memory.
Coming now to the “life” the question you repeatedly attribute as “implied” by me, it is not time yet for me to answer that question because we have not completed what we were discussing. Also, “implication” is such a slippery thing that anyone of my readers can claim any number of things as “implied” in my posts. Let us confine that debating trick to the place it belongs.
If you have an honest (or objective) answer, then do post it.
Johnson C. Philip
Jiri,
Granted, living things are different to crystal formation. However, my post was exactly to the point of the OP. It goes completely against the claims of Johnson. It is simply a fact that entropy can decrease without the ‘contrived’ conditions that he claims. (He has used a petty excuse not to answer me; a tactic which belies the fact that he doesn’t want to admit he is wrong) Furthermore, until he understands this he will always say in his heart “there is no meaning to these complexity books” :)-
Johnson: I am genuinely not sure what question you are talking about and I don’t want to waste time answering the wrong one so if you restate your question then I will attempt to address it.
@Ian
Ian, I appreciate your comment above. We were discussing the following question:
“What is the mechanism that brought forth abiogenesis, seeing random interaction between matter and energy results only in increased destruction of order due to the second law of thermodynamics”
Thanks Johnson.
The actual answer to your question is that no-one really knows the specific mechanism that took place. However I believe it involved the familiar mechanisms of chemistry and physics because I have no reason to believe otherwise. Note that not knowing how it happened is an entirely different prospect to knowing it didn’t happen.
What you probably meant to ask was how it might have happened and there are several possibilities but I will suggest the concepts of autocatalytic sets and self organisation are good places to start. I take it you are familiar with these two concepts? If so then do you believe that autocatalytic sets contradict the 2LT?
@Ian
Thanks Ian for your reply that
That is exactly what I had been trying to say: Naturalists have proposed that life had its origin through Abiogenesis. However, nobody has been able to show the precise mechanism through which it took place. In other words, the proposal about Abiogenesis is still in the proposal stage.
This is all what I had been saying in my articles.
I do not wish to add anything else and hereby I rest my case.
Johnson C. Philip
I take it you don’t wish to address my question then?
@Ian
Yes, here is my answer: you read me wrong. I did not say or imply that life is impossible in the face of the second law of thermodynamics.
What I mean is: life is possible in the face of the second law of thermodynamics because of the complex mechanism one sees in a living cell, which is in turn controlled, regulated, and guided by the complex set of information that resided on the DNA. So complex that the thousands of scientists who have been working with the latest technological gadgets for the Human Genome Project have not yet been able to decode all the information that resides in a human cell.
Let me try and interpret that relative to our discussion:
What I think you are saying is that you can have as much complexity as you like provided it is already complex but things cannot become more complex over time according to the 2LT? Which is to say that complexity itself is not the barrier but rather change in complexity?
@Ian
Not exactly!
We have been discussing “origins”. The Origin of life.
Here is the implication of what I said:
Life can exist only if a complex set of information, and an equally complex mechanism, is available. Those who claim that life had a naturalistic orign should be able to explain (naturalistically) the origin of the two things mentioned above. They have not been able to do this so far, and therefore they should not make claims beyond what has been established.
Now we are getting somewhere:
Now in your reading of those two books you have read so far, did you manage to come across the core notion of complexity which is that complex systems do not need complex origins?
I’d like to weave in another thread to this discussion, only slightly different, but one I hope will bring some clarity on that which had already been discissued here.
Life is undeniably a feature of the world we live in. The question is how life first appeared. What is life’s origin?
Sustaining life after abiogensis would be a part of the process that lead to further self-replication, natural selection and eventually human persons – i.e., the sustaining of life is necessary for the life we observe today. If we discover that non-interventionist abiogenesis and/or the sustaining of life is impossible when due considration is given to the second law of thermodynamics, then life must be explained some way other than a non-interventionist explanation. This makes the interventionist view of abiogenesis and the origin of life more favourable.
@Ian
No, the idea you mentioned is NOT there in either of the books I reviewed.
@Stuart
What you said makes a lot of sense, and I feel that is the best way of looking at the available evidence.
Concerning abiogenesis and thermodynamics, there is no conflict. The sort of increase of disorder assumed in the blog post and some of the comments above is only correct for a simple gas or fluid consisting of only one kind of particles. In more complicated systems, there is no connection between our intuitive sense of disorder and entropy. Think, for example, of a oil and vinegar: a mixture of oil and vinegar spontaneously separates into a region of pure oil and another region of pure vinegar. This spontaneous *decrease* of disorder is due to interactions between molecules and the surface tension of tiny bubbles of oil in vinegar. Another way the disorder-entropy connection is lost is if there are non-negligible long-range interactions between subsystems (e.g. gravity in astrophysics). Long-range interactions will also result in the maximum entropy state being inhomogeneous among other things.
Furthermore, the argument for incompatibility between abiogenesis and thermodynamics fails for another reason too. Abiogenesis occurred in thermodynamically open systems (i.e. there was exchange of energy and particles with the environment). The second law only requires that the entropy of isolated systems to increase. The entropy of an open system can, and often does, decrease as long as this decrease is offset by an increase in the entropy of the environment. When a piece of the Earth’s surface is heated up by sunlight during the day, its entropy increases. At night, there will instead be a net flow of heat from the surface to the environment (ultimately to space) and the entropy therefore decreases. Similar entropy decreases happen on a larger scale as winter is followed by summer. Entropy decreases in open systems are perfectly ordinary and occur all the time. In the chemical reactions thought to have lead to abiogenesis not only heat, but also particles, were exchanged with the environment so the potential for entropy decreases was even larger.
Finally, there is no result in physics that says that a complex mechanism is needed either to decrease entropy or to create order out of chaos. On the contrary, the physics literature is full of examples of simple mechanisms creating order or patterns (e.g. the journal Physical Review E even has a special subheading called “Chaos and Pattern Formation”, under which many articles have been published).
Johnson,
Oh! So the spot on Jupiter was intelligently designed! I always did wonder about that!
@tom w
Welcome tom w! I believe this is the first time that we are interactig on this blog. I look forward to a great time of interaction with you.
Thanks for your extended comment. I enjoyed reading the way you have tried to dismantle my arguments and present your views with a hand-wave.
Unfortunately, physics is not sorcery where this can be done.
All the examples you gave above refer to order that is already coded into the physics and chemistry of the processes. They do not refer to the emergence of new order. Thus none of the examples you gave above correspond either to abiogenesis or to real-life processes. They do not also correspond to spontaneous development of previously non existing order.
I appreciate the reference to Chaos and Pattern Formation (Phys. Rev, E). The papers published there only reinforce all what I have been saying in my posts — that the net result randomness is only more randomness.
What you have done is to repeat all those erroneous arguments that I have analyzed point by point and exposed to be wrong. Thus I suggest that you do read my earlier posts and also comments because I am not going to repeate what has already been discussed and discredited by me.
Johnson C. Philip
@Simon
Simon, this forum is for serious discussion and not for comedy!!
Obviously, if one cannot understand the essential and substantial difference between a “spot” and a living cell, I think comedy is the highest intellectual persuit that is left open for the intellectual deliberations of that person.
Remember, it is YOU who stated openly that those books are useless. Now you are upset that I found them useless.
Thanks for the welcome and the reply.
Why do you think my comments were are hand waving? What specifically do you disagree with?
I don’t know what you mean by “already coded into the physics and chemistry of the processes” and “previously non existing order”, but that seems to be a side track, anyway. Such coding is not a thermodynamic concept and unless it can somehow be quantified and translated into the mathematical language of thermodynamics, it makes no difference for the non-conflict/conflict between abiogenesis and thermodynamics. Regardless of whether or not entropy decreases in open systems are, in some sense, coded into the processes, the fact remains that entropy often does decrease in open systems.
Can you give an example of an article in Physical Review E (henceforth PRE) that addresses, and in your view supports, the claim that the net result of any kind of randomness is only more randomness? I think you have misunderstood the focus and content of those articles. Physics and chemistry are not purely random, not all outcomes are equally probable, and physical constraints exclude many outcomes. Many articles in PRE show that simple stochastic and/or deterministic rules can result in interesting patterns and phenomena. A nice example is Kroy et al. “Minimal model for aeolian sand dunes” (PRE 66:031302), where a simple transport model is shown to reproduce the shape and other features of sand dunes (this article is published under “Granular Materials”, not “Chaos and Pattern Formation”—if that’s a problem another example can be found). Talking in more general terms, it is well known that even simple difference equations or differential equations can be very hard to solve and show very complicated behavior. The simple differential equations describing the Lorenz oscillator provide an example.
I disagree that you have exposed any of my points as wrong. Nothing I have said is controversial in physics or mathematics: (i) that oil and vinegar spontaneously separate, (ii) that entropy often decreases in open systems, (iii) that there’s no result in thermodynamics requiring a complex mechanism to decrease entropy or disorder, (iv) that abiogenesis is thought to have occurred in an open system, and (v) that no result in thermodynamics precludes abiogenesis, etc. should all be well-known to students of thermodynamics. Your argument against abiogenesis therefore does not appear to have any relation to thermodynamics.
I wish it were so Johnson! If this is your wish please stop spouting fallacious conspiracy theories about the 2nd Law!
@tom w
Tom, in the following lines you have said what I said before
Most of the papers I read in PRE in the section you mention discuss only how randomness results in pre-coded order. I am yet to see a paper on how randomness results in non-pre-coded order. If you come across one, do point it to me.
@Simon
Thanks Simon for your comment. You do not understand the second law of thermodynamics and I find it impossible to sustain even the most basic discussion on this law.
Great posts tom w, I look forward to the detailed responses you won’t get from Johnson :)
@Ian
Birds of the same feather always find each other!!
Johnson, thanks for the reply. I take it you don’t accept that notions like “previously non existing order” and “pre-coded order” are side tracks from the discussion about (in)compatibility between abiogenesis and thermodynamics. Then how do you define “pre-coded order”? Can it be quantified and computed from physical quantities? Can it be measured experimentally?
It seems that you, instead of giving an example of an article in PRE supporting your previous claim that “The papers published there only reinforce all what I have been saying in my posts — that the net result randomness is only more randomness“, have updated the claim to “Most of the papers I read in PRE in the section you mention discuss only how randomness results in pre-coded order“. Fair enough. Can you give an example of a paper in PRE that addresses the concept of pre-coded order, and in your view supports your new claim? I have read many articles in PRE, but never come across any that talked about pre-coded order.
Name something I have said which is contradictory to the 2nd Law. You can’t.
Bingo. Johnson is claiming that life involves “pre-coded information” in contrast to other [complex] systems. You can’t have it one way and not the other. If life-chemistry is ‘pre-coded’, so is any chemistry…
@Simon
Simon, you do not understand what I have been writing, and you have been liberally misinterpreting me.
@tom w
I am in a remote area, away from civilization. PRE is not available to me to quote. However, almost all the papers there talk about pre-coded order, though this precise phrase is not used very often.
It has become clear that other than Ian, none of you understands the difference between pre-coded (intrinsic) order and extrinsic order. Thus it is impossible to carry on a dialoge with you two, whereas I have had no problem in continuing a dialoge with Ian even if we do not agree on the philosophical/theological level.
I suggest that you two take a break and read a couple of basic books on order, thermodynamics, biochemistry etc before we carry on the discussion because no meaningful discussion is possible before you understand the basics — which both of you frieds refuse to study.
Johnson,
On that note:
Who is the one making unestablished claims?!
I am not sure I know what you mean by “pre-coded order” either. However ever eager to learn I did some research…
Firstly I asked google to find the phrase “pre-coded order”. Guess what, this thread was the first entry and the other five (yes only five) entries talked about pre-coded order forms. In other words according to google the phrase doesn’t exist outside this thread…
Searching for “Precoding” returns a few more hits but they all seem to refer to radio transmission systems. Similarly there is a “pre-code” disambiguation page on wikipedia which lists the following articles, all but one relating to transmission systems:
In the interests of being thorough I decided to ask if google scholar had anything to contribute. A search for “pre-coded order” returned the following message:
So I wondered if perhaps it is a technical science term? If so then surely the ISI Web of Science would have something on “pre-coded order” but not a single entry was found when I searched for it. So I broadened the search by removing the quote marks and got a staggering 82 files (which is next to nothing on web of science where I frequently get 1,000+ responses to searches). Pretty much all 82 were using the word “coded” to refer to a coding system used by the experimenters. I searched within the results to see if the word “random” turned up and seven papers matched:
You might think the last one sounds promising but the abstract talks about coding images from videos, and has nothing to do with our topic.
Therefore Johnson I will add myself to the list of people (apparently along with 6.5 billion others) that do no know what you mean by pre-coded order.
LMAO!
Johnson,
You need to read Stuart’s recent post on abiogenesis:
Fazale Rana: “So in a sense researchers have shown that in principle theres nothing in the chemistry that prevents life’s building blocks from forming or those building blocks from assembling into larger complex molecules.”
http://www.reasons.org/about-us/our-people#fazale_rana
@Simon
@Ian
Thanks for the research and a greater thanks for telling about the “methodology” used for your “research” !!!
I would not like to comment about researches in physics and chemistry done by googling.
Thanks also for ignoring the words intrinsic and extrinsic that I had used.
I have nothing to add except that I googling is not research.
Johnson: Did you read my post or did you read Simon’s quote of my post? He didn’t quote the whole thing you know… but let me explain what I did despite the fact it is obvious in my post:
I used google as a starting point (standard research practice in the modern era to establish context) followed by google scholar (which is a recognised research tool, have you tried it?) followed by the ISI Web of Science which is a top notch academic journal, conference proceedings and citations database.
But never mind all that – I am quite happy to be wrong and all you have to do is provide a list of websites or academic journals or books or whatever that specifically use the phrase “pre-coded order”. Or, failing that simple task, you can even just tell me what specific academic journal database you believe will give me papers discussing that phrase and I’ll do your work for you… couldn’t be easier.
Another alternative would be to fill in the gap on wikipedia by adding a page on “pre-coded order”. That would be a great public service too…
@Ian
Thanks Ian for your suggestions. Pre-coded (intrinsic) order and extrisic order are words I coined to explain the discussion. You might not find the precise terminology on the net.
However, your suggestion of adding an article on the Wiki is a good one. But instead of Wikipedia I will add that article either on this website or on http://www.Kalkion.com which is devoted to hard-core science.
Hello Johnson,
I really appreciate your polite manner. It makes a gratifying (and unfortunately rare in my experience) contrast. I regret the necessity of you having to develop intelligent discussion against the backdrop of such belligerent attitudes. I’m understanding more about the second law of thermodynamics, and understand what you mean by pre-coded (intrinsic) order, if no one else does.
Let me ask… how would you respond to the critics who say an open system solves the problem of life’s origin posed by the second law of thermodynamics? I know this was discussed in Thaxton, Bradley and Olson’s The Mystery of Life’s Origin some of which I have read;
Are you familiar with this work? and in your opinion, though this material is now 25 years old, have its conclusions been remedied, as others here imply?
SImon,
There may be nothing in principle in the chemistry that that prevents life’s building blocks from forming or those building blocks from assembling into larger complex molecules, but that does not mean; (1) you have life (building blocks are far from life), (2) you have information (complexity is far from information), (3) life’s building blocks can form or those building blocks can assemble into larger complex molecules in practice when physics – particularly the second law of thermodynamics – is considered, (4) and life’s building blocks can form or those building blocks can assemble into larger complex molecules when placed in the geo-relevant conditions of the early earth.
You have failed to read correctly and comprehend this basic point. It seems you are propping up your opinions on invisible stilts. Nothing said there counters what is said here on this thread.
@Stuart
Dear Stuart, thanks for your comments.
1. Thaxton et al based their presentation on the basis of the fundamental laws of science (particularly, that of physics and chemistry). Since the foundation is firm, the conclusions have not become dated, let alone outdated. Additional data and observations plus theoretical studies in the field of chaos and complexity have become available to lend support to their contention.
2. I am very happy to note that my essentially very brief presentation on the second law of thermodynamics has been helpful to you. I now feel that I should write a detailed presentation, maybe 10 to 20 pages, with a liberal amount of illustration to make things clear for anyone who wishes to understand the implications of this law.
3. You asked
People who make this statement either do not understand the second law of thermodynamics and its implications, or they are simply being stubborn without being honest.
I have a great appreciation for Lord Gaylord Simpson who was stubborn about his views on evolution, but who was honest to admit that what sways him to evolution is not hard proofs of science but rather his personal philosophy.
4. Thanks for the very kind words about my attitude. A word of encouragement goes a long way to lift up my spirit, particularly because what I am getting in the form of comments is mostly empty arguments by people who do not understand their science. It is tiring to explain “string theory” to a tailor who insists that he has been dealing with “strings” all his life.
Ian is the only exception and it is a pleasure to enter into discussions with him even if we stand poles apart in our basic commitment. The only problem is that after an honest admission, he is quickly swayed by the other guys who say “hey, you should not have made that admission” or something like that.
5. I am happy that I became a contributor here. All the criticism has given me sufficient incentive at this age (I am 56, semi retired) to buy an entire library of the most current and authentic graduate and postgraduate level books in physics. The books on Chaos and complexity, biochemistry, etc are in addition that.
Thanks God for critics. They make us more studious, more accurate, and more humble in our life
I am back to the comfort of my person office with electricity, running water and broad-bad net connection, which I did not have for the last two weeks.
Johnson C. Philip
Johnson:
Thanks for pointing out that “pre-coded order” is your own phrase. I have no problem with that but, in my opinion, I don’t think it really helped this discussion so I suggest we put it aside and focus on the main prize.
What I would personally really like, rather than a general coverage of the second law, is a specific and direct discussion of the second law as it pertains to complex chemical systems capable of life forming from simpler chemical systems without life.
So far I have only seen general statements (perhaps due to time or otherwise) dismissing this possibility so there hasn’t really been any argument we can get our teeth into, just assertions. We can stand here all day saying “the second law allows abiogenesis”, “no it doesn’t”, “yes it does” ad nausium but for the discussion to progress we need specifics.
Stuart,
The very reason that this thread exists is because Johnson believes that in principle it is not possible for life to have fomed abiogenetically; that principle, he claims, is the 2nd Law. Everything I have said in this thread is to show that the second Law says nothing of the sort.
All of your four points in 55 are irrelevant; you are trying to turn this round on me and claim that I havn’t proven abiogenesis – and to be sure, I havn’t! But I don’t need to. That is not the issue. The issue is that Johnson’s claims about the second Law are wrong and I have shown this in posts 1 and 6. Johnson’s post 4 does not help him, because the second Law says nothing about “new” information (such an entity doesn’t exist), and therefore I am necessarily correct: a decrease in entropy is perfectly valid for an open system according to the second Law.
Recent Comments
The Thinking Matters Bloggers
Dominic Bnonn Tennant, Editor
bnonn@thinkingmatters.org.nz
Jason Kumar, Editor
jason@thinkingmatters.org.nz.
Stuart McEwing, Writer
mcewing.stuart@gmail.com
Rob Ward, Writer
rob.ward@thinkingmatters.org.nz
Questions, suggestions, and other comments are more than welcome.
NZ Apologetic Groups
NZ Christian Blogs
Apologetics
Philosophy
Creation & Evolution
Magazines and Journals
Stats
Popular Tags
Most Commented
Popular Posts