Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The illusion of organizing energy

Categories
Biophysics
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics states that in a closed system any natural transformation goes towards the more probable states. The states of organization are those more improbable, then transformations spontaneously go towards non-organization, so to speak. Since evolution would be spontaneous organization, evolution disagrees with the 2nd law.

The tendency expressed in the 2nd law rules all physical phenomena and is clearly evident in our everyday life, where e.g. systems that were ok yesterday, today are ko, while systems that are ko, do not self repair and remain ko until an intelligent intervention. In short, things break down and do not self-repair, to greater reason they do not self-organize. All that can be related to the trend of the 2nd law.

Before this evidence an usual objection is that Earth is not a closed system because it receives radiant energy from the Sun, so the 2nd law doesn’t apply. Such energy — evolutionists say — would provide the organizing power for evolution. Here we will see in very simple terms as this is nothing but a naive illusion.

In my previous post I noted how, according to general systems theory, organization shows always two different aspects: power and control. Energy is related to the power that the system needs to work and control is related to all what pertains to the “intelligence” of the system, what governs both energy/matter and information in the system. Notice that control has even to organize the energy itself powering the system. If energy really had the organizing capability evolutionists believe, one would ask why systems theory does such distinction in the first place. (In philosophical terms, in a sense, the above distinction is related to the distinction between action and knowledge. Action without knowledge is only agitation and disorder. We will see below how power/energy without control is even destructive.)

All know what energy is. The capability to do a work. Mechanical work/energy is defined as a force producing a shift. A moving object has kinetic energy, due to its speed. Thermal energy is due to the disordered motions of the molecules making up matter. Electric energy is a flow of electrons. Chemical energy is sort of potential energy able to power chemical reactions. Radiant energy is carried by light and other electromagnetic radiation.

Energy can power the systems, but never can create the organized system in the first place. In short, energy is the fuel, not the engine. Example, in photosynthesis, used by plants to convert light energy into chemical energy, the light energy presupposes a photosynthesis system just in place. The light energy doesn’t create the photosynthesis system, like the photons don’t create the photovoltaic cell that outputs electric current.

In all definitions of “energy” there is nothing that could lead us to think that energy is able to transform improbable states into probable states. Consequently, energy cannot change the situation of the 2nd law: energy cannot create organization, which always implies highly improbable states. Indeed the opposite: per se uncontrolled energy is destructive. Example: an abandoned building is slowly but inexorably destroyed by the natural forces of the environment during some centuries. If we increases the energy by considering a flood, it can be destroyed in some days. With more energy, a tornado can destroy it in minutes. Finally with the energy of a bomb we can destroy the building in few seconds. More the energy, more the speed of destruction.

If we consider the physical principle of mass–energy equivalence we reach the same conclusion as above. Mass per se has nothing to do with real organization. Mass and matter are simply the initial support/substance on which an higher principle — intelligence/essence — must operate to obtain a final organized system.

In general we can say that what energy can do is to speed the processes/transformations. But since the transformations go towards the more probable states, uncontrolled energy, far from helping evolution, it could even worsen its problems, because accelerates the trend towards non-organization. The moral is that to invoke uncontrolled energy to revert the trend of the 2nd law is counterproductive for evolutionists.

An objection that evolutionists could rise is: energy can power and greatly speed the chemical reactions, so they can produce life. In these objection there are two problems.
(1) Usually chemical reactions go towards equilibrium, the more probable state, so they don’t overturn at all the 2nd law.
(2) In this context the alleged naturalistic origin of life stated by evolutionism is a non-sequitur. In the hierarchy of biological organization chemical reactions are at the lowest level. Between this level and the final organization of organisms there are countless layers of complexity, related to increasingly higher kinds of abstractness and formalism, which are unattainable by mere chemistry.

Another similar evolutionist objection is that in 1953 Miller and Urey conducted an experiment where some organic compounds such as amino acids were formed by providing thermal and electric energy to a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. Again no new organization here. The compounds obtained are exactly the probable transformations that the system was able to produce, under the same circumstances. In fact if one repeats the Miller/Urey experiment he gets again the same results. This shows that nothing improbable happens, rather something of very probable, almost certain. No violation of the 2nd law. Obviously also here there is an abyss between the Miller/Urey amino acids and the organization of life, also if we consider a single unicellular organism.

To sum up, the 2nd law in the context of statistical thermodynamics, provides a fundamental reason why naturalistic origin of life is impossible. To resort to energy doesn’t solve the problem, because energy is not a source of organization, rather the inverse: uncontrolled energy can cause destruction (= non-organization). Only intelligence is source of organization, and as such can explain the arise of life, the more organized thing in the cosmos.

Comments
Niwrad You said "All systems crash" (see your comment at 8 above). Surely "all systems" include the atomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons, which form a system). Yes? No?timothya
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
timothya All organized systems crash because the non-organization probable states are far numerous than the unique organization improbable state of functioning. Proton, from this perspective, cannot be compared to organized systems as those we are dealing with here, cells, organisms...niwrad
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
DNA_Jock: As noted by others, this is wrong. You must insert an “on average” or “tends to”.
Okay, “on average” spaceships, libraries, computers and brains “tend to” not spontaneously self-assemble from a pile of rubble. Happy now?Box
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
of related note: Visible light is incredibly fine-tuned for life to exist. Though visible light is only a tiny fraction of the total electromagnetic spectrum coming from the sun, it happens to be the "most permitted" portion of the sun's spectrum allowed to filter through the our atmosphere. All the other bands of electromagnetic radiation, directly surrounding visible light, happen to be harmful to organic molecules, and are almost completely absorbed by the atmosphere. The tiny amount of harmful UV radiation, which is not visible light, allowed to filter through the atmosphere is needed to keep various populations of single cell bacteria from over-populating the world (Ross; reasons.org). The size of light's wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, also seem to be tailor-made for each other. This "tailor-made fit" allows photosynthesis, the miracle of sight, and many other things that are necessary for human life. These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe's entire range of electromagnetic emissions. Like water, visible light also appears to be of optimal biological utility (Denton; Nature's Destiny). Fine Tuning Of Light to the Atmosphere, to Biological Life, and to Water - graphs http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMTljaGh4MmdnOQ Extreme Fine Tuning of Light for Life and Scientific Discovery – video https://vimeo.com/114136732 The " just right " relationship of the light spectrum and photosynthesis Excerpt: The American astronomer George Greenstein discusses this in The Symbiotic Universe, p 96: Chlorophyll is the molecule that accomplishes photosynthesis... The mechanism of photosynthesis is initiated by the absorption of sunlight by a chlorophyll molecule. But in order for this to occur, the light must be of the right color. Light of the wrong color won't do the trick. A good analogy is that of a television set. In order for the set to receive a given channel it must be tuned to that channel; tune it differently and the reception will not occur. It is the same with photosynthesis, the Sun functioning as the transmitter in the analogy and the chlorophyll molecule as the receiving TV set. If the molecule and the Sun are not tuned to each other-tuned in the sense of colour- photosynthesis will not occur. As it turns out, the sun's color is just right. One might think that a certain adaptation has been at work here: the adaptation of plant life to the properties of sunlight. After all, if the Sun were a different temperature could not some other molecule, tuned to absorb light of a different colour, take the place of chlorophyll? Remarkably enough the answer is no, for within broad limits all molecules absorb light of similar colours. The absorption of light is accomplished by the excitation of electrons in molecules to higher energy states, and (are) the same no matter what molecule you are discussing. Furthermore, light is composed of photons, packets of energy and photons of the wrong energy simply can not be absorbed… As things stand in reality, there is a good fit between the physics of stars and that of molecules. Failing this fit, however, life would have been impossible. The harmony between stellar and molecular physics that Greenstein refers to is a harmony too extraordinary ever to be explained by chance. There was only one chance in 10^25 of the Sun's providing just the right kind of light necessary for us and that there should be molecules in our world that are capable of using that light. This perfect harmony is unquestionably proof of Intelligent Design. http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1927-the-just-right-relationship-of-the-light-spectrum-and-photosynthesis William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined - March 23, 2013 Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped. “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” … In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/william-bialek-more-perfect-than-we.html Michael Denton: Remarkable Coincidences in Photosynthesis - podcast http://www.idthefuture.com/2012/09/michael_denton_remarkable_coin.html Fine Tuning Of Universal Constants, Particularly Light - Walter Bradley - video https://vimeo.com/114137127bornagain77
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Niwrad It is what you have already said that is demonstrably wrong. All physical systems, isolated or open, are capable of generating reversals of the tendency to entropy. All physical systems **tend** to disorder. On average. This much, no sensible person would dispute. But you insist on an extension of the idea: "No. *All* systems crash." Really? All systems? How often does a proton crash because of your version of the 2LoT?timothya
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
Undirected energy doesn't explain organizational order. Who can dispute that? It's simply GAME OVER. Materialism cannot offer us an organizing power - only destructive powers like the second law. The only "counter-arguments" offered are irrelevancies about semantics. Another excellent article by Niwrad!Box
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
organization shows always two different aspects: power and control
I mentioned this on your previous OP ... our opponents will be confused about the term 'organization' (@ 21 above). You've defined it, but I wonder if another term might be more effective - maybe something like 'dynamic organization'. There's a risk when coining a new term, as with FSCI, etc. it can have an isolating effect (e.g. to understand ID you have to learn a new vocabulary). But it's also a risk to use terms that already have one understanding - in this case, 'organization' tends to mean just 'ordered' for many in the scientific community now. Sometimes an entirely new term is the best solution though.Silver Asiatic
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
"organization cannot come from energy/matter alone." So Saturn's rings must be designed? Really? h/t Joe...DNA_Jock
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
timothya #19 What are you saying? I am arguing exactly the opposite of materialists: organization cannot come from energy/matter alone.niwrad
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Levan commented thus:
I laugh when the materialists try to reduce this complexity to fluctuations in Energy/Entropy balance
Hang about. That is exactly what Niwrad is doing. Are you still laughing?timothya
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Levan #16
I laugh when the materialists try to reduce this complexity to fluctuations in Energy/Entropy balance
Me too.niwrad
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Levan, duh, those other planets either receive too much energy or too little energy from the Sun. Jupiter created a big red spot and Saturn has its pretty rings, after all. :) [sarcasm]Joe
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
What is about other Planets in Solar System? They also receive more or less "energy" but they did not create anything. Perhaps there is a problem with 2nd Law. What we behold in Universe is the creation of structures. If the model of Big Bang is true we must admit that from the chaotic soup of "nothing" we now have a modern beautiful Universe with galaxies, planets and the human brain. I laugh when the materialists try to reduce this complexity to fluctuations in Energy/Entropy balanceLevan
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
The 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics states that in a closed system any natural transformation goes towards the more probable states.
As noted by others, this is wrong. You must insert an “on average” or “tends to”.
The states of organization are those more improbable, then transformations spontaneously go towards non-organization, so to speak.
Actually, the issue is that the states of organization are less numerous. So the tendency towards more evenly distributed energy is, err, statistical in nature. Hence the need to insert “on average”. ‘Organization’ is generally trumped by energy: the more energy, the more numerous states.
Since evolution would be spontaneous organization, evolution disagrees with the 2nd law.
You are playing fast and loose with geography. Do you admit that local decreases in entropy can occur? Do you recognize that these decreases can be arbitrarily large, if a larger increase occurs elsewhere? Or to put it another way, do you understand that “compensation” is a real, observed phenomenon?
Before this evidence an usual objection is that Earth is not a closed isolated system because it receives radiant energy from the Sun, so the 2nd law doesn’t apply.
I’ll admit that people often object that the earth receives energy from the sun, but that is in fact NOT the reason that entropy can decrease. The 2nd law always applies. Here’s a thought experiment to see if you understand the 2LoT: If the sun magically vanished tomorrow, in the following year would the entropy of the earth increase or decrease? Why?DNA_Jock
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Niwrad says:
“in average”? Do systems break down “in average”? No. *All* systems crash. *Zero* systems self-repair or self-organize.
I assume that in your language "in average" is equivalent to "on average". So you are saying that no systems, isolated or open, ever show an increase in organisation, under any circumstances? Your claim that "all systems crash" suggests that this is your position. Have I understood you right?timothya
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
kairosfocus Certainly. There are self-maintaining and self-repairing systems. But, as you rightly say, that implies a huge amount of organization frontloaded in the systems just from the start by design. Organisms do have such sophisticated capabilities because they are exquisitely designed. No organization is gratis.niwrad
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
Niw, I believe there are systems that to some degree are self-maintaining, e.g. living ones. Of course, that involves a very high degree of organised functionality that depends on large quantities of organised, stored information. KFkairosfocus
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
CHartsil, if you looked at the wider range of thermodynamics literature, you would see that there are different conventions. Engineers especially commonly use "closed systems" to denote what in recent decades physicists typically describe as "isolated." And while as one coming from physics I prefer the isolated-closed-open distinctions, I have to respect that such is not universal . . . and I think engineers outnumber physicists. Similarly, U and E depending on context, denote internal energy; and of course H and S are another confusion point, with H as informational entropy also relevant. And there are different sign conventions on the 1st law, and more. Learn before jumping on dismissively, again. KF PS J, isolated blocks ANY flow across system boundary, closed allows energy but not matter, open allows both.kairosfocus
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Closed systems aren't isolated? What?Joe
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Niw, quite an interesting perspective. KFkairosfocus
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
timothya #3 "in average"? Do systems break down "in average"? No. *All* systems crash. *Zero* systems self-repair or self-organize.niwrad
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Thermodynamic efficiency and mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase - 2011 Excerpt: F1-ATPase is a nanosized biological energy transducer working as part of FoF1-ATP synthase. Its rotary machinery transduces energy between chemical free energy and mechanical work and plays a central role in the cellular energy transduction by synthesizing most ATP in virtually all organisms.,, Our results suggested a 100% free-energy transduction efficiency and a tight mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/12/1106787108.short?rss=1 See also: Davies et al., “Macromolecular organization of ATP synthase and complex I in whole mitochondria,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and: Tamás Beke-Somfai, Per Lincoln, and Bengt Nordén, “Double-lock ratchet mechanism revealing the role of [alpha]SER-344 in F0F1 ATP synthase,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences There is a profound 'chicken and egg' dilemma with ATP surrounding the Origin Of Life problem for evolutionists: Evolutionist Has Another Honest Moment as “Thorny Questions Remain” - Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: It's a chicken and egg question. Scientists are in disagreement over what came first -- replication, or metabolism. But there is a third part to the equation -- and that is energy. … You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes. The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionist-has-another-honest-moment.html The 10 Step Glycolysis Pathway In ATP Production: An Overview - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kn6BVGqKd8 At the 14:00 minute mark of the following video, Chris Ashcraft, PhD – molecular biology, gives us an overview of the Citric Acid Cycle, which is, after the 10 step Glycolysis Pathway, also involved in ATP production: Evolution vs ATP Synthase – Chris Ashcraft - video - citric acid cycle at 14:00 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rUV4CSs0HzI#t=746 The Citric Acid Cycle: An Overview - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6vQKrRjQcQ The Citric Acid Cycle: The Reactions - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cXVleFtzeE The photosynthetic process is clearly a irreducible complex condition: "There is no question about photosynthesis being Irreducibly Complex. But it’s worse than that from an evolutionary perspective. There are 17 enzymes alone involved in the synthesis of chlorophyll. Are we to believe that all intermediates had selective value? Not when some of them form triplet states that have the same effect as free radicals like O2. In addition if chlorophyll evolved before antenna proteins, whose function is to bind chlorophyll, then chlorophyll would be toxic to cells. Yet the binding function explains the selective value of antenna proteins. Why would such proteins evolve prior to chlorophyll? and if they did not, how would cells survive chlorophyll until they did?" Uncommon Descent Blogger Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin: The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445610a.html Enzymes and protein complexes needed in photosynthesis - with graphs http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1637-enzymes-and-protein-complexes-needed-in-photosynthesis#2527 Of note: anoxygenic (without oxygen) photosynthesis is even more of a complex chemical pathway than oxygenic photosynthesis is: "Remarkably, the biosynthetic routes needed to make the key molecular component of anoxygenic photosynthesis are more complex than the pathways that produce the corresponding component required for the oxygenic form."; Early Life Remains Complex By Fazale R. Rana (FACTS for FAITH Issue 7, 2001)bornagain77
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
The simplest photosynthetic life on earth is exceedingly complex, too complex to happen by accident even if the primeval oceans had been full of pre-biotic soup. Scientists unlock some key secrets of photosynthesis - July 2, 2012 Excerpt: "The photosynthetic system of plants is nature's most elaborate nanoscale biological machine," said Lakshmi. "It converts light energy at unrivaled efficiency of more than 95 percent compared to 10 to 15 percent in the current man-made solar technologies.,, "Photosystem II is the engine of life," Lakshmi said. "It performs one of the most energetically demanding reactions known to mankind, splitting water, with remarkable ease and efficiency.",,, "Water is a very stable molecule and it takes four photons of light to split water," she said. "This is a challenge for chemists and physicists around the world (to imitate) as the four-photon reaction has very stringent requirements." http://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-key-secrets-photosynthesis.html Femtosecond snapshots of photosynthetic water oxidation - July 9, 2014 Excerpt: researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. Working at SLAC's Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS), the world's most powerful x-ray laser, the researchers were able to take detailed "snapshots" of the four photon-step cycle for water oxidation in photosystem II, a large protein complex in green plants. Photosystem II is the only known biological system able to harness sunlight for the oxidation of water into molecular oxygen.,,, "Knowing how this happens is important for understanding the design principles used in natural photosynthesis," Yachandra says. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140709140254.htm In what I find to be a very fascinating discovery, it is found that photosynthetic life, which is an absolutely vital link that all higher life on earth is dependent on for food, uses ‘non-local’ quantum mechanical principles to accomplish photosynthesis. Moreover, this is direct evidence that a non-local, beyond space-time mass-energy, cause must be responsible for ‘feeding’ all life on earth, since all higher life on earth is eventually completely dependent on this non-local ‘photosynthetic energy’ in which to live their lives on this earth: Non-Local Quantum Coherence In Photosynthesis - video with notes in description http://vimeo.com/30235178 Uncovering Quantum Secret in Photosynthesis - June 20, 2013 Excerpt: Photosynthetic organisms, such as plants and some bacteria, have mastered this process: In less than a couple of trillionths of a second, 95 percent of the sunlight they absorb is whisked away to drive the metabolic reactions that provide them with energy. The efficiency of photovoltaic cells currently on the market is around 20 percent.,,, Van Hulst and his group have evaluated the energy transport pathways of separate individual but chemically identical, antenna proteins, and have shown that each protein uses a distinct pathway. The most surprising discovery was that the transport paths within single proteins can vary over time due to changes in the environmental conditions, apparently adapting for optimal efficiency. "These results show that coherence, a genuine quantum effect of superposition of states, is responsible for maintaining high levels of transport efficiency in biological systems, even while they adapt their energy transport pathways due to environmental influences" says van Hulst. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130620142932.htm At the 21:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr Suarez explains why photosynthesis needs a 'non-local', beyond space and time, cause to explain its effect: Nonlocality of Photosynthesis - Antoine Suarez - video - 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhMrrmlTXl4&feature=player_detailpage#t=1268s Moreover, there is actually a molecular machine, that surpasses man made machines in engineering parameters, that is integral to the photosynthetic process: Miniature Molecular Power Plant: ATP Synthase - January 2013 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8m6o0gXDY ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell - Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. Excerpt: In manufacturing terms, the ATP (Synthase) molecule is a machine with a level of organization on the order of a research microscope or a standard television (Darnell, Lodish, and Baltimore, 1996). http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp ATP Synthase, an Energy-Generating Rotary Motor Engine - Jonathan M. May 15, 2013 Excerpt: ATP synthase has been described as "a splendid molecular machine," and "one of the most beautiful" of "all enzymes" .,, "bona fide rotary dynamo machine",,, If such a unique and brilliantly engineered nanomachine bears such a strong resemblance to the engineering of manmade hydroelectric generators, and yet so impressively outperforms the best human technology in terms of speed and efficiency, one is led unsurprisingly to the conclusion that such a machine itself is best explained by intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/05/atp_synthase_an_1072101.html Your Motor/Generators Are 100% Efficient – October 2011 Excerpt: ATP synthase astounds again. The molecular machine that generates almost all the ATP (molecular “energy pellets”) for all life was examined by Japanese scientists for its thermodynamic efficiency. By applying and measuring load on the top part that synthesizes ATP, they were able to determine that one cannot do better at getting work out of a motor,,, The article was edited by noted Harvard expert on the bacterial flagellum, Howard Berg. http://crev.info/content/111014-your_motor_generatorsbornagain77
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
As to how quickly energy was harnessed to produce work, , we now have evidence for photosynthetic life suddenly appearing on earth, as soon as water appeared on the earth, in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth. The Sudden Appearance Of Life On Earth (3.9 billion years ago) – video https://vimeo.com/92413648 Isotopic Evidence For Life Immediately Following Late Bombardment - Graph http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/oldestbitofc.jpg Dr. Hugh Ross - Origin Of Life Paradox (No prebiotic chemical signatures)- video (40:10 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UPvO2EkiLls#t=2410 "We get that evidence from looking at carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis. And it tells us that in Earth's oldest (sedimentary) rock, which dates at 3.80 billion years ago, we find an abundance for the carbon signature of living systems. Namely, that life prefers carbon 12. And so if you see a higher ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 that means that carbon has been processed by life. And it is that kind of evidence that tells us that life has been abundant on earth as far back as 3.80 billion years ago (when water was first present on earth).,,, And that same carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis tells us that planet earth, over it entire 4.5662 billion year history has never had prebiotics. Prebiotics would have a higher ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12. All the carbonaceous material, we see in the entire geological record of the earth, has the signature of being post-biotic not pre-biotic. Which means planet earth never had a primordial soup. And the origin of life on earth took place in a geological instant" (as soon as it was possible for life to exist on earth). - Hugh Ross - quote as stated in preceding video When Did Life on Earth Begin? Ask a Rock (3.85 bya) http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/ When did oxygenic photosynthesis evolve? - Roger Buick - 2008 Excerpt:,, U–Pb data from ca 3.8?Ga metasediments suggest that this metabolism could have arisen by the start of the geological record. Hence, the hypothesis that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before the atmosphere became permanently oxygenated seems well supported. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1504/2731.long When Did Life First Appear on Earth? - Fazale Rana - December 2010 Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria. http://www.reasons.org/when-did-life-first-appear-earth Iron in Primeval Seas Rusted by Bacteria - Apr. 23, 2013 Excerpt: The oldest known iron ores were deposited in the Precambrian period and are up to four billion years old (the Earth itself is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old). ,,, This research not only provides the first clear evidence that microorganisms were directly involved in the deposition of Earth's oldest iron formations; it also indicates that large populations of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria were at work in the shallow areas of the ancient oceans, while deeper water still reached by the light (the photic zone) tended to be populated by anoxyenic or micro-aerophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria which formed the iron deposits.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423110750.htm Life's history in iron - Nov. 7, 2014 Excerpt: A new study examines how Earth's oldest iron formations could have been formed before oxygenic photosynthesis played a role in oxidizing iron.,,, Microorganisms that photosynthesize in the absence of oxygen assimilate carbon by using iron oxide (Fe(II)) as an electron donor instead of water. While oxygenic photosynthesis produces oxygen in the atmosphere (in the form of dioxygen), anoxygenic photosynthesis adds an electron to Fe(II) to produce Fe(III). "In other words, they oxidize the iron," explains Pecoits. "This finding is very important because it implies that this metabolism was already active back in the early Archean (ca. 3.8 Byr-ago)." http://phys.org/news/2014-11-life-history-iron.html Moreover photosynthesis is found to be widespread among different bacteria phyla with no clear evolutionary relationships between them: The Elaborate Nanoscale Machine Called Photosynthesis: No Vestige of a Beginning - Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: "The ability to do photosynthesis is widely distributed throughout the bacterial domain in six different phyla, with no apparent pattern of evolution. Photosynthetic phyla include the cyanobacteria, proteobacteria (purple bacteria), green sulfur bacteria (GSB), firmicutes (heliobacteria), filamentous anoxygenic phototrophs (FAPs, also often called the green nonsulfur bacteria), and acidobacteria (Raymond, 2008)." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/elaborate-nanoscale-machine-called.html?showComment=1341739083709#c1202402748048253561bornagain77
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
CHartsil #1 What you wrote is irrelevant: "isolated/closed"..."Try living without anything that was either directly or indirectly produced by the sun", nobody denies organisms use Sun's energy as fuel. The problem is not that organized systems use such energy, the problem is that energy alone cannot create the systems.niwrad
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
Niwrad introduces his/her post with this:
The 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics states that in a closed system any natural transformation goes towards the more probable states.
The standard form of 2LoT allows for local reversals of the governing tendency, even in isolated systems. So why use the inaccurate phrase "any natural transformation goes" instead of the accurate "any natural transformation on average goes"? Could it be that the author's formulation is intended to suggest that local reversals in isolated systems are impossible? This is demonstrably wrong, but it is the only interpretation that makes sense in the light of the rest of Niwrad's argument.timothya
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
Niwrad, Chartsil is right and you are hopelessly wrong on this. It's been gone over a million times elsewhere. I'm surprised you even try to resurrect such a failed argument. You'd be well advised to drop it.Henry Crun
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
"The 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics states that in a closed system any natural transformation goes towards the more probable states. " Wrong, it's isolated systems not closed systems. "Before this evidence an usual objection is that Earth is not a closed system because it receives radiant energy from the Sun, so the 2nd law doesn’t apply. Such energy — evolutionists say — would provide the organizing power for evolution. Here we will see in very simple terms as this is nothing but a naive illusion." Try living without anything that was either directly or indirectly produced by the sun. Not even the most ignorant or sleezily dishonest creationist can weasel around this one. The earth is neither isolated nor closed as a physical system. Period.CHartsil
March 10, 2015
March
03
Mar
10
10
2015
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT
1 … 8 9 10