Steve then gives an extended quote from Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of
Science and Scripture", 1955, p193. I agree that Ramm was "one of the
few
science-aware theologians", but I do not think his expertise in matters
of statistical mechanics is something that should be called on as
authoritative source. The quote that Steve gives contains some
misconceptions, (inadvertent) misrepresentations and/or misstatements
concerning thermodynamics. (Since I don't wish to consume large amounts
of
bandwidth disecting and criticizing each of the quotes of others that
Steve
so freely fills his posts with, I have passed on the opportunity to back
up
my charges at this time. I will provide further discussion on this
matter
only if pressed to do so, and if I have the time for it. Anyway, I think
I
did more than enough of this point-by-point disection in the second part
B
companion post to this one where I explained, at Steve's request, the
problems with the quotes Steve gave from Giancoli's introductory physics
textbook.) The layman's understanding displayed by the 1955 Ramm quote
is
not too bad for a folk-level description, but it should not be used to
support one's case on matters of thermodynamics and statistical
mechanics.
I hate to play the 'priestly robes' card here, but in physics it is
extremely difficult to say much about anything (much beyond mere
tautologies) that is both understandable at the layman's level *and*
still
correct (as best as the situation is currently known by knowledgeable
physicists). I kind of like the way Ludwik Kowalski has phrased the
situation: "Explanations are never perfectly correct and perfectly clear
at the same time. This is unavoidable because clarity calls for
simplifications, while simplifications, by definition, impose limits on
the
truthfulness of what is being explained.". Even the very definitions of
the *same* terms are different at an advanced level than they are at the
lower level as they are infused with meaning from a deeper conceptual
understanding that is inaccessible at the lower level. For a single
example, consider the (very basic) concept of 'momentum'. At the
introductory level we tell students that the momentum is p = m*v where m
and v are the mass and the velocity of the object in question. This is
*at best* a half truth. It has a very limited domain of validity, and it
does not even get at the *essense* of what momentum actually *means*.
The
actual situation is that the momentum component of a given system (along
a
given direction in space) is that quantity (as a function of the system's
dynamical degrees of freedom, or elementary dynamical observables) that
generates a virtual canonical transformation of the state of the system
which infinitesimally translates it along that given direction in space.
This definition is correct for classical, quantum, Newtonian,
relativistic,
particle, and field-described systems. This idea that the momentum is
the
generator of infinitesimal spatial displacements of the state of the
system
*is* the *essence* of the *meaning* of momentum. It is *not*, however,
*understandable* by anyone other than a physicist or a physics grad
student. The milk-meat metaphor given by St. Paul about spiritual things
has a certain applicability to scientific things as well. At the lower
level we must (to some extent) tell half-truths and lies and misrepresent
the actual state of affairs (as best as it is known) in order to be
understandable to those at that level. The misrepresentations gradually
get cleared up as (if) the student progresses to higher levels and can
then
handle the better approximations to the (current state of our
understanding
of the) truth.
Not only is it not a good idea to go around quoting elementary physics
books as authoritative in scientific discussions, it is also not a good
idea to quote the writings of theologians as authoritative in scientific
matters (unless they also have advanced training in those scientific
matters). The reverse is also true (reversing theologians <-> scientists
and theology <-> science) as well. (I, for one, would not want to get my
theological understanding from those whose professional training was
solely
as scientists either.) At least now I know where Steve got the idea that
"The second law of thermodynamics cannot be ignored.... Evolution and
entropy are headed in opposite directions....".
SJ>The fact is that evolutionists often depict evolution as a "basic and
>universal law that is "integrative". For example, Dobzhansky, co-
>founder of Neo-Darwinism, saw "Evolution" as "a general postulate
>to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must hence forward
>bow":
Steve then quotes W.R. Bird quoting Dobzhansky quoting Teilhard de
Chardin
giving an overdrawn and exaggerated picture of how fundamental and
universal the principle of evolution is. Steve also quotes Julian Huxley
waxing overly grandiose about evolution. I have no quarrel with the
characterization of these quotes as mostly hot air. It is true, though,
that Darwinian-type evolutionary ideas and processes are powerful and
have
realizations in many far-reaching situations of nature and human endeavor
from biology to immunology to engineering to market economics, etc. The
applicability of these ideas, though, is mostly restricted to situations
where multiple copies of something are produced in an environment that
either aids or hinders the copying success and ties such reproductive
success or failure to (usually relatively small) changes that occur in a
relatively haphazard manner in the things being copied. The
trial-and-error method may not be a universal integrative principle of
all
of nature, but it is a pretty widespread and robust way of coping with
it.
Steve then quotes from Ratzsch's, "The Battle of Beginnings", which
claims
that some major creationist writers are misunderstood as to which meaning
of the term 'evolution' they mean when they say that the SLOT precludes
evolution. They sometimes mean it in a cosmic sense rather than as a
particular biological theory. If Ratzsch is accurately assessing the
interpretive situation for writings of major creationists like Morris
(and
I certainly have no reason to doubt him), then that assessment does not
help the case for their claims any. They are still wrong. Even if the
universe as a whole is taken as a closed system the SLOT *still* does not
preclude various *subsystems* of the universe from increasing in
macroscopic complexity and order *and* from even locally decreasing in
thermodynamic entropy itself. The only requirement is that the overall
total entropy increases. For example, stars and planetary systems
organize themselves out of the gravitational collapse of clouds of gas
and
dust. The entropy of the collapsed state of a fully formed stellar
system
is lower than that of the gas cloud from which it formed. The reason
that
this is allowed is that as the cloud collapses under its own gravitation
it
(adiabatically) heats up and radiates EM radiation into (the lower
temperature environment of) space. The EM energy radiated away cools the
system and carrys away entropy with it as the system cools. This cooling
reduces the entropy of the remaining gas and also allows it to continue
to
collapse. The entropy carried away by the radiation more than
compensates
the entropy decrease of the collapsing gas cloud. As far as
nonthermodynamic (i.e. at the level of the microstates) forms of order
and
complexity go at the macroscopic level, or the mesoscopic level of
biology,
the SLOT does not forbid such self-organizing process (it sometimes
encourages it via the formation of dissipative structures).
A little known fact is that the universe has already *effectively* been
in
its state of 'heat death' since a very early stage of its cosmic
expansion.
(Here *effectively* means for the purposes of global cosmological
calculations.) This is because the entropy tied up in the 2.7 K cosmic
background radiation is orders of magnitude greater than the entropy
associated with the matter degrees of freedom in the universe. (There
are
estimated to be about 10^8 cosmic photons *per* proton and electron
present
in the universe. These background photons are in thermal equilibrium and
their entropy is maximal. As the universe expands the overall expansion
is
effectively adiabatic since the photons cannot increase their entropy any
further, and the total entropy is effectively about constant. It is true
that the matter in the universe is, most decidedly, not in equilibrium,
but
the matter is such a minor constituent of the universe (as far as the
number of its degrees of freedom are concerned) that its entropy
contributes such a little amount compared to that of the cosmic
background
that it would make very little relative difference in the overall entropy
of the universe *even* if the matter *was* in complete equilibrium in a
state of 'heat death'. OTOH, it is the matter in the universe that tends
to control the behavior of the cosmic Hubble expansion of the universe
itself, because the matter (although possessing a tiny minority of the
total microscopic degrees of freedom and entropy present) contributes the
vast majority of the mass/energy of the whole, and that is what drives
the
behavior of gravity and spacetime.
>DB>Saying that the SLOT cannot be ignored is kind of like saying
>>that gravity cannot be ignored. It's true, but it goes without saying.
>
SJ>Disagree. This might "go without saying" to physicists, but it does
not
>"go without saying" to evolutionary philosophers like Dobzhansky and
>Huxley. They blithely speak of a universal principle of evolution which
>is integrative, when the real universal principle (represented by the
>second lawe of thermodynamics) which is dis-integrative.
I partly agree and partly disagree here. I agree with you that the
overblown rhetoric of Dobzhansky and Huxley is exaggerated when they
claim
that there is some sort of universal integrative principle of evolution.
I
disagree that the SLOT is fundamentally disintegrative. I just gave an
example of the (integrative) formation of stellar systems. The SLOT is
not
so much 'disintegrative' as it is 'radically egalitarian'. The SLOT
causes
the tendency for any concentration of energy in a relatively few degrees
of
freedom to be more equitably shared (on average) by the surrounding
degrees
of freedom due to interactions between those degrees of freedom. (This
egalitarianism is codified in the classical Equipartition of Energy
Theorem.) If this diffusion of energy into evermore degrees of freedom
results in a macroscopically disintegrative process, then so be it. If
it
results in a macroscopically integrative process, then so be it.
Come to think of it, rather than having the SLOT and evolution on
opposite
sides of a disintegrative/integrative dichotomy, I think an economic
metaphor is more apt. The SLOT is (metaphorically speaking) Marxist in
orientation. Here energy flows from each degree of freedom according to
its ability to other degrees of freedom according to their need. OTOH,
evolution is (according to metaphor) a capitalistic lassez-faire market
system. Those species/genes that best compete in the environmental
marketplace come to dominate it, while those others that cannot compete
go extinct (out of business). The rich get richer, and the poor get
poorer, and resources and populations are allocated according to a
fluctuating balance between supply and demand. Now even though in
economics an unregulated market system is incompatible with a Marxist
command economy, that does not mean that the SLOT is incompatible with
evolution. This is because the economic metaphor works at different
levels
for both the SLOT and evolution. (The microscopic degrees of freedom of
stat mech are not the same as species or genes.)
SJ>No doubt, but the relevance of Prigogine's "spontaneous formation of
>dissipative structures in far-from-equilibrium systems" to biological
>systems has not been "demonstrated", according to Bradley & Thaxton:
Steve gives a quote here that effectively says that Prigogine's examples
of
dissipative structures are not nearly as complicated as actual biological
systems and they do not consider the information-rich nature of large
biomolecules. They therefore conclude that his work has little relevance
to the OOL problem. I would not characterize Prigogine's work as
irrelevant, but, rather, of uncertain relevance for the OOL problem. My
invocation of Prigogine was not in the context of explaining the OOL
problem, but rather as a powerful counterexample to the claim that the
SLOT either forbids self-organization or requires a pre-existent
"energy-conversion system" for it to happen. I only claimed a certain
suggestiveness for Prigogine's dissipative structures regarding the OOL
problem.
>DB>It is true that all the mechanisms of such self-organization have
>>not been shown in detail for the *very* complicated behaviors,
>>metabolisms, and organizations of living things, and *especially*
>>for their origin (abiogenesis problem), but the results on *much*
>>simpler systems *are* suggestive.
>
SJ>Sorry, but "suggestive" is not good enough. The fact is that *at
>present* "evolution and entropy" *are* "headed in the opposite
>directions". Broadly speaking, entropy flows in a direction of
>decreasing order:
>
>"It is often noted that the second law indicates that nature tends to go
>from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity." (Thaxton
>C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin,
>1992, p115)
I don't know what's good enough here, but I disagree with the
characterization that "The fact is that *at present* 'evolution and
entropy' *are* 'headed in the opposite directions'.". Speaking "broadly"
is usually the same as speaking imprecisely, and is often speaking
incorrectly. The above quote from TB&O is incorrect using the
definitions
that I gave in my previous post. Even if they are using other
definitions
for the order, disorder, complexity, and simplicity that they have in
mind,
the quote is still misleading.
>DB>It should be kept in mind, though, that such a suggestion is
>>neither proof nor hard evidence. Just how encouraging such a
>>suggestion is for the possible demonstration of a naturalistic
>>abiogenesis senario depends, to a great extent, on how optimistic
>>one is (by prior disposition) about such a program's chances for
>>success.
>
SJ>I would have said "by prior" *presupposition*. If one is a naturalist
>(theistic or otherwise) then "a naturalistic abiogenesis senario" is the
>only possibility, regardless of the "evidence". But if one is a
>theist who believes that God exists and who can influence or intervene
>in the closed system of cause and effect, then "a naturalistic
abiogenesis
>senario" is only *one* possibility.
Prior presupposition is fine with me. Often, though, one's disposition
strongly influences one presuppositions and (maybe) vice versa. I agree
with the last sentence above, but I would like to allow for the
possibility that God is always active in a hands-on way in all processes
whether they are natural ones or not, in which case the concept of
'intervention' is moot. The idea of a "closed system of cause and
effect"
sounds more deistic than theistic. Just Who does the theist think
enforces
the cause-effect rules (i.e. makes sure that the laws of nature are
obeyed)
and keeps everything in existence anyway?
>DB>Steve regards the program as as hopelessly impossible, while Pim
>considers it far more likely than that.
>
SJ>There is a subtle setting up of a strawman dichotomy here. I am
>alleged to "regard the ["naturalistic abiogenesis"] program as as
>hopelessly impossible", while a naturalist like "Pim" is claimed to
>merely "consider it far more likely". Since *any* possibility is "far
>more likely" than "hopelessly impossible", and I would need to prove
>a universal negative to sustain my alleged position, on this basis Pim
>wins automatically. All he has to do is show there is *some*
>possibility for abiogenesis, whereas I would have to show that
>abiogenesis is "hopelessly impossible".
I was not trying to set up any straw man here and was not interested in
how easy or hard yours (Steve) or Pim's positions are to demonstrate. I
was trying to be accurate in stating what I (apparently wrongly) thought
your position was and was trying to be conservative in stating Pim's
position because I was less sure of just what his position is.
SJ>In fact I have *never* said that "the ["naturalistic abiogenesis"]
>program" was "hopelessly impossible". It is "possible" that God could
>have imbued nature with sufficient resources to generate life from
>non-life without any special divine influence or intervention.
In this case I was mistaken about your position. I wrongly inferred that
you thought a naturalistic OOL senario was hopelessly impossible.
SJ>OTOH, if "Pim" is a materialist-naturalist, then he would have to
>regard "naturalistic abiogenesis" as not only "far more likely" but
>an absolute *certainty", whether or not it can ever be demonstrated.
Since I wasn't sure of Pim's position I wanted to give him more room.
>DB>I am personally doubtful, but am not committed to its impossibility.
>
SJ>That sounds like my position too! I "am not committed to" abiogenesis'
>"impossibility" but "am personally doubtful" that it happened *fully*
>naturalistically.
Agreement happens sometimes. It's nice to know that I don't disagree
with everyone all the time.
>DB>In any event, there is no warrant for claiming that 'evolution and
>>entropy are headed in opposite directions'.
>
SJ>See above. In the sense of "universal law" that Ramm uses it, it does.
>The problem is the ambiguity of the word "evolution". Ratzsch points
>out in his Chapter 7, Creationist Theory: Popular Evolutionist
>Misunderstandings", that:
What follows the "that:" above is another quote by Steve from Ratzsch
which,
again, says that major creationist writers are frequently misunderstood
(by
both their foes and their friends) about their claims concerning the
problems that the SLOT presents for evolution. Frequently the
creationist
writers do not make it clear whether they are using the term 'evolution'
in
the sense of the "cosmic evolutionary worldview (or model)" or in the
sense
of the "Darwinian biological theory". My point is that in *either* case
the SLOT is *not* incompatible with evolution. One possible exception is
regarding a cosmology with an eternal cyclically expanding and
contracting
universe. But even though such a cosmology runs in to problems with the
SLOT (not to mention other laws of physics) it can not very properly be
thought of in terms of some cosmic integrative evolutionary picture,
since
the very concept of a progressive evolutionary principle contradicts the
concept of cyclicalness (? cyclicality, whatever).
>DB>At most, one may claim that certain macroevolutionary steps (and
>>abiogenesis, too, for that matter) are too large to happen with a
>>reasonable probability, under the conditions supposed, in the time
>>allowed, with the supposed prior populations present.
>
SJ>I do claim that. But in the case of "abiogenesis" the Second Law of
>Thermodynamics is a major factor why non-living chemicals have not
>spontaneously self-organised themselves into living entities. Thaxton
>et al, in their "Summary Discussion of Experimental Results" point
>out that the contrast between the success in synthesizing amino acids
>and the failure to synthesize protein and DNA is due to the large
>difference in the magnitude of the configurational entropy work
>required:
At this point Steve gives a long quote from Thaxton, Bradley, & Olsen's
"The Mystery of Life's Origin". I do not have a copy of TMOLO and have
not read it, so it would be premature of me to characterize TB&O's
understanding of the situation based on the quotes of that work that
Steve
presents. But, I do not understand what they are talking about from the
quotes that Steve gives. They (and Steve) repeatedly speak of "the
configurational entropy work required". Now, I know what work is, what
entropy is, and even what configurational entropy is. What I do not know
is what 'configuational entropy work' is. From what I surmise from the
quote(s) is that it that TB&O use the phrase as some sort of measure of
the
difficulty of the task of assembling a particular specifically ordered
(given fixed sequence) biomolecule from a prebiotic soup of monomers
using
thermal processes involving random collisional kinetics and chemistry.
I admit such an assembly is very difficult with such processes and any
given sequence would occur with a *very* low probability. But the
difficulty of this task is not a concern of the SLOT. It is possible,
although I could be wrong here since I have not read TMOLO, that TB&O are
conflating the two distinct concepts of (1) configurational entropy as
defined in statistical mechanics, and (2) the CK complexity of the
sequence
of monomer types for a given information-bearing molecule. The
configurational entropy for a given thermodynamic system is that part of
the thermodynamic entropy that is the average (over the statistical
ensemble of all possible spatial arrangements of all of the individual
microscopic i.e. elementary particles in the system) information needed
to
specify which spatial arrangement is the actual such spatial arrangement
of
the particles. The CK complexity of the sequence of a given instance of
a
given macro-bio-molecule is the (minimal) information needed to specify
the identity of the particular sequence of monomers that compose that
polymer. The configurational entropy of a thermodynamic system can only
be
separated from the kinetic entropy (involving the microscopic momentum
degrees of freedom rather than the spatial coordinate degrees of freedom)
when the microscopic dynamical variables are adequately described by
classical mechanics. If classical stat mech is OK to use then the
momentum
degrees of freedom are treatable as separate (and independent in
equilibrium) random variables from the spatial degrees of freedom
describing the particle locations. When quantum mechanics is necessary
(as
in the case of the electron degrees of freedom), then these degrees of
freedom cannot be treated separately and the configurational entropy
cannot
be separated from the kinetic entropy when calculations of the
thermodynamic entropy are made. The SLOT applies to the thermodynamic
entropy of the system, not the CK complexity for the sequence of monomer
identities in a given biopolymer. It very well may be (and probably is)
very unlikely that a prebiotic soup of monomers would spontaneous
assemble
into a collection of useful biological macromolecules which would then
collectively acquire the property of self-replication--even when the soup
is maintained in a far-from-equilibrium state by external energy and
matter
fluxes through the system. But whether this can happen naturalistically
(with a reasonable probability) or not is not a specific concern of the
SLOT.
>DB>Just because something may not be likely under naturalistic
conditions, and
>>just because entropy and the SLOT are based on probability
considerations
>>regarding a system's microscopic degrees of freedom, that is not a
valid
>>reason to conclude entropy and the SLOT give support for the
probabilistic
>>argument concerning the thing's low probability of occurrence. IOW,
not
>>everything related to improbable events relates to the SLOT.
>
SJ>No doubt. But in the case of "abiogenesis", the "SLOT" *is*
responsible for
>its "low probability of occurrence".
I don't think so.
>DB>Steve's second point that "Naturalistic evolution is contradicted
>>by the second law of thermodynamics, *unless there is a pre-existing
>>energy-conversion system*" is not correct either. The existence or
absence
>>of an "energy-conversion system" has nothing to do with the SLOT.
>
SJ>Of course "the existence or absence of an `energy-conversion system'
>has nothing to do with the SLOT", per se. But the issue is whether
>energy alone can reverse the SLOT's tendency to destroy order. Ratszch
>notes that simply throwing raw energy into a system does not produce
>order but destroys it:
Steve then quotes Ratzsch about the high likelihood that subjecting a
prebiotic system to energy fluxes from the outside (presumably in the
form
of lightning discharges, UV radiation, and maybe molecules with highly
reactive chemical bonds) would break up and destroy any incipiently
growing potentially useful collection of biopolymers before they could
begin to use their potential (pre)biological functions and begin to
harness
those energy fluxes while being protected from their harmful effects.
BTW,
what is *raw* energy?
SJ>Thaxton et al also point out that a source of energy alone is not
>sufficient to explain the origin or maintenance of living systems
>- there needs to be a means of converting this energy into the
>necessary useful work:
I didn't claim that that the presence of an energy source alone was
"sufficient to explain the origin or maintenance of living systems". I
do believe, though, that the presence, or absence of energy conversion
mechanisms are not the concern of the SLOT. Maybe such a mechanism is
needed (and cannot be identified) for any naturalistic OOL senario. This
means that without such a mechanism the OOL has a very low probability --
not that the SLOT is violated.
[continued]
David Bowman
dbowman@gtc.georgetown.ky.us