Researchers May Have Solved 'Missing Link' Mystery in Origin of Life

NBC News ^ | 06/09/2015 | by JESSE EMSPAK, LIVE SCIENCE CONTRIBUTOR

[trubolotta]

This is an example of the unfortunate choice of words I was trying to illustrate. The situation you are describing is “order” in a geometric sense, but not a thermodynamic sense. I think heat provides a better example.

A heat source and a heat sink in a box (closed system) is ordered with “hot stuff” in one place and “cold stuff” in another place. The difference allows us to extract energy but eventually the system flattens and everything reaches the same temperature. When everything is the same, isn’t that order? Of course it isn’t in the thermodynamic sense.

If I now introduce energy from an external heat source, or an imbalance from and external heat sink, I can possibly re-order the interior of the box but in total, my slightly larger universe is still marching toward thermal equilibrium. In your example, the settled rocks have no further energy to offer without application of external energy.

Again, I’m simply trying to make the point of how poorly words have been chosen to explain the second law.

[mountainlion]

Humans have managed to cause the development of hundreds...

That is called micro evolution which has never created something new out of nothing.

[noinfringers2]

You make a good/essential point for indicating the lack of proof or substantiation of ‘life’. Any one with adequate science knowledge can make a scenario for beginning of ‘life’. However, this article does not explain/define life any more than the work done at the large European atom smasher.

[FredZarguna]

What the hell are you talking about?

I didn't say the laws of thermodynamics don't apply. I said they don't say what you think they say.

There is no "supposed" "macro" evolution. There is evolution. And evolution obeys the laws of thermodynamics.

You can't draw a box around some arbitrary part of a system and claim you're "applying" the laws of thermodynamics. When you think, you are organizing information, which corresponds to a decrease in entropy. That doesn't mean your brain can violate the laws of thermodynamics. The result of the thinking process is that heat is given off to the universe, and that change in entropy is positive, and larger than the entropy decrease within your brain.

Here is a very simple example of drawing an arbitrary box around part of the system where the laws of thermodynamics apply, and claiming that the Second Law is violated. Put two very large objects at different temperatures in contact with each other. Heat Q will flow from the hot body to the cold one. The entropy change for the hot body is ≈-Q/T_hot. The entropy change for the cold body is ≈+Q/T_cold. If you consider only the hot body, its entropy has decreased. GASP! By your logic, the hot body has violated the Second Law. No such thing. The total entropy change is for the whole universe, and it's Q(T_hot-T_cold)/T_hotT_cold. That is manifestly positive.

The Earth is not an isolated system. Energy is coming in from the sun every moment, and energy is leaving into space. You can't just draw a box around the Earth and claim that because there are some isolated parts of it -- like your own brain -- where entropy is decreased that they're "special" and "violate" the Second Law. They don't. You need to get better arguments. The one you're using was shot down over a hundred years ago. If you're going to make a scientific argument, you could at least be up to date. Until you are, stop making yourself look stupid.

[jonno]

Order can result from the chaos of seismic events.

Let me know when a seismic event is able to produce a wall of rocks with a gate in the middle...

[muir_redwoods]

No gate but pretty close

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimini_Road

[muir_redwoods]

I believe the discussion was originally, order out of chaos. I gave two solid example

[Bill Russell]

Sorry for my late weigh-in. But my vanity motivated two cents from a while back: God’s Sudoku http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2964965/posts

[Go_Raiders]

The theory of evolution does not posit that life starts from nothing. It is a proven mechanism that explains the origin of new species in a world that already contains living organisms.

This article is exploring an aspect of a theory of molecular evolution, which attempts to fathom how the genetic molecules and early proteins may have arisen. It is entirely separate from Darwin’s theory and is far from proven, but even molecular evolution is not something from nothing.

[FredZarguna]

All those tools you have in your garage? Guess what: they got there by increasing the entropy of the universe. When you clean up your garage? Guess what: the entropy of the whole universe is going to increase, not decrease when you do that.

Wait a billion years, and if by some miracle your garage is still around, I guarantee that it it is going to be substantially improved by more evolved beings who -- guess what -- will make their improvements by increasing the entropy of the universe.

I can't wait to see all the new tools and cars that evolve in my garage due to the increases in order after we add some energy and time.

Contrary to your claims, neither ghosts nor any other supernatural beings put the tools and cars in your garage that are already there. They were put there by an incredible amount of time, energy, and the laws of optimization created by a God who doesn't work on the schedule written down in an old book of Jewish legends.

[jps098]

Okay, so you cannot give an example. Who 'proved' and shot down this 100 years ago?

So using macro evolution, which evolved first oxygen or carbon, and if there was this super-compressed hydrogen explosion, where did the neutrons come from? Which evolved first the pine or the oak, and did they all evolve from a rose or a blade of grass. I am amazed how much faith it takes to believe all one must to believe in macro evolution. It is no wonder their faithful glom onto every "Missing Link" press release.

[Drumbo]

That is awesome. Thanks.
jps098 said, "I am amazed how much faith it takes to believe all one must to believe in macro evolution."

For a while, I majored in Philosophy in college. Much of modern philosophy embraces atheism, or at least gives it equal credibility with belief in a Creator. As part of the curriculum I was required to take a "Logic and Reasoning" class. The best example of reasoning I encountered (imho) was "Pasqual's Wager", which I wrote my first semester thesis on and seemed to make my professors head explode as outdated (a flawed argument if ever there was one). I got a D. I changed my major to poetry. Neither philosophers nor poets were in demand as career opportunities, but my grade point average improved significantly.

[FredZarguna]

I can't give you an example of something that doesn't happen. You're under the mistaken impression that living creatures don't obey the laws of thermodynamics. They do.

If you're interested in a short history of the universe, there are plenty of excellent books on cosmology. I suggest you actually read one.

Physicists and chemists have been supplying examples where local pockets of organization give rise to locally ordered systems for well over a century. I gave you one example: your own brain. Instead of paying attention to what we've been telling you, you pretend you have this "blindingly brilliant" argument about Second Law violations within your own little echo chamber of Young Earth Creationists who don't understand basic science.

I'm trying to do you a favor here: every time you trot this clever little argument out to prance around the field, people who actually understand physics are laughing at you. If you want to continue to be the butt of other people's jokes that's fine: just keep pretending that there aren't literally an infinite number of examples where the Second Law is locally -- but never universally -- violated. I'll be happy to keep on laughing.

[jps098]

Really, you are the one that needs to use some real thinking. You evolutionists never seem to deal with the absurd assumptions you must have faith in.

Your ilk seem to believe that somehow a creature came alive from non-living chemicals and that somehow became self-replicating. From that both sexes evolved.

You then have to have these two 'creatures' be able to mate. As this living thing 'evolves' at each juncture both sexes must evolve in a very short time in history, in the same place and the new mutated evolution must be beneficial to not be rejected. Then somehow these must add or subtract chromosomes because the number vary greatly. No mechanism or explanation is ever offered, these things a taken by faith.

This miracle of impossible odds must happen not only once but tens of thousands of times just in the animal world alone. Add in the insects, and fish and the numbers only become more absurd.

Evolutionists never offer a clue about the variety of plants arose, and assume it just happens too. How does a seed 'sprout' an evolutionary change?

I also note you did not address chemical evolution. This too is assumed. Creating gold from lead in a lab? That's child's play. Explain how the table of the elements were created..

No sir, I think believing in fairy tales is your right. Go ahead and keep on laughing. I quit believing in evolution at 14 when I asked, "You want be to simply believe all that?... just on faith?" Funny, my father was a teacher in atomic theory to Annapolis grads and he admitted long ago your 'proofs' are just smoke.

Keep laughing for now, one day you will see it too.

[FredZarguna]

It's a shame your father had so little understanding of what he was teaching, and imparted his ignorance to you.

There is actually not a single statement in your entire post that corresponds to any theory, past or present. It's simply a collection of nonsense.

In all the years I've been listening to Creationist bilge, I've never heard of anything as stupid as "chemical evolution." Not only is the manner in which this happened thoroughly understood, even the relative abundances of the most basic of the elements are completely predicted by statistical thermodynamics to within a few hundredths of a percent from something that happened fourteen billion years ago.

There are many books on basic cosmology that explain the formation of elements both in consequence of the Big Bang, and subsequent formation of later elements in the hearts of stars. Again, stop believing the universe is a haunted house, and avail yourself of the materials available.

[jps098]

I would suggest a book on probability. Your response is typical of what I expect from a liberal. You don't breech the issue with facts, just personal attack.

Thoroughly understood? Sure, these books offer 'suppose' and 'think that' and artist conception drawings, but offer no mathematical formulas or laws of physics on how it could happen. You remind me of the 'scientists' touting global warming, wait I know it, you work for NOAA, or maybe you found the Mars rock. One of a collection who claim science knowledge when in reality pound desk and yell louder when ignorance is exposed.

I have a background in chemistry and through a little bit of chemical engineering knowledge, developed a product that prevents an entire class of migraine headaches, so spare me your 'smarter than thou' nonsense.

I have a friend who with an advanced degree in Geology. In his sixth year he told his professor with a doctorate he wanted to go to where he could study the geologic column. He was told, "The geologic column does not exist, and if it did the crust of the earth would be well over 50 miles thick. It only exists as a drawing." That described most of evolution; conjecture and drawings.

[jps098]

Hey Fred. On my way to work I thought that if this is thoroughly understood then could you suggest a specific book. I figure I could become a billionaire by coming out with fusion power. That should be a snap.

[FredZarguna]

Still 60+ years behind the times I see. It's well understood. Here's an example that was in all the papers. Learn to read.

[FredZarguna]

Still 60+ years behind the times I see. It's well understood. Here's an example that was in all the papers. Learn to read.

[FredZarguna]

You may have seen this on your way to work. It predates the Bible by 5 billion years. You can also see examples at night.