Thread: Abiogenesis
View Single Post
  #17  
Old 30-09-2011, 04:16 PM
Poita (Peter)
Registered User

Poita is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NSW Country
Posts: 3,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by adman View Post
First of all - nothing 'defies' the 2nd law of thermodynamics - not even life. In a closed system entropy will increase to a maximum, yes. But living things are not a closed system. They are, in part at least, machines for consuming energy and changing it into different forms, and once you start to add energy to any system it accordingly permits localised decreases in entropy. No Laws are defied in the process. Most things we see in the universe are localised descreases in entropy, stars, solar systems, planets galaxies etc - all very unlikely if you are trying to create one randomly from their constituent parts, and yet there they are.

Adam
I understand how the 2nd law works, but the formation on stars, solar systems planets galaxies and so forth are easily explained by the existing laws of physics, they are not at all unlikely events to happen. They don't go against chemistry or physics to occur, they are, for the most part, 'powered' by gravity and easily understood physical and chemical reactions etc. none of their increase in order or complexity defies the 2nd law, neither does evolution or processes that occur once you get DNA based life forms.
They are in fact inevitable formations due to the known laws of physics.

The formation of something complex enough to become life doesn't fit that mould. I haven't seen any research that as even proposed an basic organism that doesn't have stupendously large odds against occurring, even the simplest ones proposed run up against the error catastrophe problem. Once you get to a DNA type system, natural selection, mutation etc. can kick in, but until you do, you don't have Darwinism to act as the method of swimming upstream against the current so to speak.

Anyway, all of that is really by the wayside, my point is that if life is bound to happen given certain conditions, i.e. that we have a bio-friendly universe, then that is an incredibly profound, and shocking statement, and I don't see how it could be codified or incorporated into the current theories of physics. I'm not at all saying the universe isn't that way, I agree that it could be, we just don't know, but if it is then that would turn current theories on their heads. I don't think I'm communicating my point clearly, I'll have a re-think.
Reply With Quote