farmerman wrote:well then, by your definition, life includes death. I agree that entropy "kicks in" at death, however evolution only affects the living and life operates against all entropic gradients..
hey, I didnt wanna have a "jump on real life" kickfest, but if we stick to fundamental disgareements on science, we can get really heated but not personal. (Sort of like Abe Vigoda in the Godfather !!"_nuttin poisanal, ISH jus bidness")
Hi Farmerman,
Not a prob. I'm a big boy and folks can say whatever they like. Wasted breath. Posters that become too abusive I simply begin to ignore. There's far too many other interesting people here to waste time with it.
Entropy not only kicks in at death but the aging process during life is also another way it becomes apparent, isn't it? It would seem that entropy governs at all levels unless it is overcome by information and energy. ( I actually had birds and insects in mind with the flying examples, not planes. My wasted breath. I guess sometimes I get ignored too.
)
Anti-entropy actions are strictly localized and short term, on an overall cosmic scale. The heat death of the universe is assured.
Heat death, eh?
Lack of heat might have been the problem early on. Any guesses as to how life could have self generated in the early days of the Earth if the current theories of stellar evolution are correct?
According to evolutionary theory, life arose from non-life on a warm early Earth within the first billion years.
Quote:Bigger not necessarily better
The mystery of how the Earth avoided freezing in its early days, when the Sun burned less ardently, cannot be solved by assuming that the Sun was bigger, Philip Ball reports.
28 February 2000
PHILIP BALL
According to conventional wisdom, the Earth should have been frozen solid in its early years, when the newborn Sun was dimmer than it is today. But geological evidence tells us that ocean waves reflected those anaemic sunrises. Now the mystery of how the Earth escaped the big freeze has been deepened by new findings from the USA and Switzerland.
The Earth had its fiery birth in collisions between lumps of rock that condensed out of the gas and dust surrounding the young Sun. Initially it was a ball of molten magma that eventually cooled, and water fell from the skies to fill the oceans.
The Sun that crossed the skies of this early Earth is thought to have been much feebler than it is today. Current theories of how stars evolve indicate that those like our Sun get gradually brighter and hotter with age. According to these theories, the Sun gave out only about three-quarters of its present heat and light during the first 800 million years or so of Earth's history. This should not have been sufficient to keep the seas from freezing.
Yet the geological record contains evidence that throughout this time not only the Earth but also Mars, which is even further from the Sun, was warm enough to support liquid water on the surface. This puzzle is called the Faint Young Sun paradox............
from
http://www.nature.com/nsu_new/000302/000302-3.html
rlQuote: Entropy not only kicks in at death but the aging process during life is also another way it becomes apparent, isn't it? It would seem that entropy governs at all levels unless it is overcome by information and energy. ( I actually had birds and insects in mind with the flying examples, not planes
. reducing entropy a strategy in life(cf Lynn MArgulis 2003 and ernst Mayr 2001) Id agree that entropy kicks in as we age , a precursor to death. None which question "when does life end" is actually relevant to biological systems because we know . We are counted as dead after we no longer breed. In effect, we are only evolutionarily significant at that stage of life before and during the offspring production stages. Think salmon, evolution is only effective on the juveniles , which have their fitness tested and then pass that fitness on during their last gasp style of breeding.
HMMM. I thought that "snowball earth" is still a viable piece of evidence.that Pre 3.8 BY there was global freeze. Im not a paleoclimatologist nor do I play one on tv and Im not much swayed by what they say cause theres too many of em with and without political agendas I go with whatever Alley at Penn State says. He does the rigorous math and scans scads of data and precambrian data.
real life wrote:Heat death, eh?
In the big picture, life or the lack of life has no effect on entropy. The heat death of the universe is the net result of the second law of thermodynamics.
real life wrote:Lack of heat might have been the problem early on.
Again the heat death of the universe is irrelative of life or lack of life, it is the net result of the second law of thermodynamics.
real life wrote:Any guesses as to how life could have self generated in the early days of the Earth if the current theories of stellar evolution are correct?
Yes I have some guesses but I must wonder; why are you correlating current theories of stellar evolution with life's beginnings on earth? What is the connection you infer?
real life wrote:According to evolutionary theory, life arose from non-life on a warm early Earth within the first billion years.
I have read about this yes. Another legitimate theory is seeding. What point are your trying to make?
real life wrote:The mystery of how the Earth avoided freezing in its early days, when the Sun burned less ardently, cannot be solved by assuming that the Sun was bigger, Philip Ball reports.
Assuming Philip Ball is correct and that's a big assumption I see no reference to earth's internal heat in his claims. What point are you trying to make?
Hi Real Life,
If all of my prior text does not make it plain that proto-life could have initiated here on earth, or been seeded extraterrestrialy, or both, even if the sun was cooler, then I am not sure what else to add except maybe go visit some geologic events.
The earth has hot burps and farts and steamy diarrhea too, could help make some nice tasty primordial soup!
Those still suffering from the misconception that Darwin stated we were descended from apes are not going to pay attention, Chumly. We were not descended from apes but an even lower form of mammal life. The ape species split of one way and the more primitive form of humankind split off another way, evolution making some "errors" like the Neanderthal (I won't say that they still exist today but it sure seems like it). Stanley Kubrick is very close in the beginning scenes of "2001." Reading bits and pieces on evolution but never starting from the beginning of the recipe and actually reading "Origin of the Species" and "Voyage of the Albatross" is like trying to make a cake with no knowledge of how to make a batter, or even no knowledge of how to open the box of flour. This mission is futile.
I've read the entire Bible many times -- I doubt that any of these people ever got past the first page of "Origin," althought that's all I needed to read. It was an epiphany.
farmerman wrote:HMMM. I thought that "snowball earth" is still a viable piece of evidence.that Pre 3.8 BY there was global freeze.
Yes, I thought the evidence for "Snowball Earth" was pretty good. As far as I know, life on Earth arose during the relatively warm time between being molten and frozen. Once frozen, life endured. Recent evidence shows that life can endure in deep rock mantle as well as thermal vents.
The article quoted by RL is dated 28-Feb-2000. At the time, the Snowball Earth theory was not as widely accepted, which may be why this article perceives a paradox, where non exists given more modern evidence.
rosborne979 wrote:farmerman wrote:HMMM. I thought that "snowball earth" is still a viable piece of evidence.that Pre 3.8 BY there was global freeze.
Yes, I thought the evidence for "Snowball Earth" was pretty good. As far as I know, life on Earth arose during the relatively warm time between being molten and frozen. Once frozen, life endured. Recent evidence shows that life can endure in deep rock mantle as well as thermal vents.
The article quoted by RL is dated 28-Feb-2000. At the time, the Snowball Earth theory was not as widely accepted, which may be why this article perceives a paradox, where non exists given more modern evidence.
So how long do you believe was the 'warm window' in between molten and frozen in which life had to spontaneously generate from non-living chemicals?
How did this primitive life survive the frozen period and how long did the frozen period last, in your opinion?
As an aside --
If the sun has been growing warmer since this period, isn't it a possibility that the currently postulated period of 'global warming' is primarily due to the sun, especially since we see similar occurrences such as melting polar regions on Mars?
Lightwizard wrote:
Those still suffering from the misconception that Darwin stated we were descended from apes are not going to pay attention, Chumly. We were not descended from apes but an even lower form of mammal life.
Actually, human descendance goes further back than any form of mammal life; we're descended from bacteria - from chemical reactions of minerals and water.
True, CI -- I didn't want to complicate it to much for the simple minded.
Carl Sagan in an experiment in the PBS series "Cosmos" came up with a primordial organic matter from non-living chemicals and minerals that were present in the water of a very early Earth. Electricity played a part (lightning) if I remember right. It's been performed more than once -- now too length a search as I am at work in the gallery today (no rest for the wicked!) and do not have the time to find links. This is like helping people who are students in first year college in anthropology, geology, plate teutonics, et al. Not really interested in that if the don't personally want to study. It requires a open mind to science and time -- those in denial don't want their bubble burst so they will use any excuse not to do their own research.
I've seen people admit all the evidence says "evolution" then in the same breath deny it's proven at all. What can ya do?
Oh but it's not evidence, they are only facts with a number of equally legitimate interpretations. Also don't you know the meaning of the word theory
If it is convenient to "interpret" the facts. Not in any scientist's word book to my knowledge. What the creationists are doing is interpolating the facts.
farmerman wrote:rlQuote: Entropy not only kicks in at death but the aging process during life is also another way it becomes apparent, isn't it? It would seem that entropy governs at all levels unless it is overcome by information and energy. ( I actually had birds and insects in mind with the flying examples, not planes
. reducing entropy a strategy in life(cf Lynn MArgulis 2003 and ernst Mayr 2001) Id agree that entropy kicks in as we age , a precursor to death. None which question "when does life end" is actually relevant to biological systems because we know . We are counted as dead after we no longer breed. In effect, we are only evolutionarily significant at that stage of life before and during the offspring production stages.
How depressing, even if I believed in evolution I would not take that attitude because my actions could greatly enhance the survivability and viability of the species even if I am not the one producing offspring at that point.
Since then we see that entropy does govern living systems, not just non-living ones, it would seem that the evolutionary idea of increasing organization and information is at odds with that.
farmerman wrote:HMMM. I thought that "snowball earth" is still a viable piece of evidence.that Pre 3.8 BY there was global freeze. Im not a paleoclimatologist nor do I play one on tv and Im not much swayed by what they say cause theres too many of em with and without political agendas I go with whatever Alley at Penn State says. He does the rigorous math and scans scads of data and precambrian data.
Yes I am not saying that the early sun was not colder. I leave that question open for the moment. But if it was, it would seem to make producing the early stages of life all the more unlikely because you would have a much smaller window of opportunity in which to do so, no?
real life wrote:
Yes I am not saying that the early sun was not colder. I leave that question open for the moment. But if it was, it would seem to make producing the early stages of life all the more unlikely because you would have a much smaller window of opportunity in which to do so, no?
As Ros pointed out
Quote:"Recent evidence shows that life can endure in deep rock mantle as well as thermal vents."
There may not have been need for a window of opportunity.
P
Frozen Ocean
Three billion years ago, the Sun which lights our solar system was thirty percent less luminous than it is today. Mant people believe that if the Earth's atmosphere was the same then as it is today, the oceans would be frozen. But recently, Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has proposed that the oceans would not completely freeze. Instead, he calculates that only the top 300 meters of the ocean would freeze over.
You might think that icy cold water trapped under hundreds of meters of ice would not be beneficial to life beginning, but in fact it is advantageous in many aspects. One advantage is that the layer of ice would provide a protective shield by preventing ultra-violet light, which enters the earth's atmosphere and destroys organic compounds, from reaching the developing molecules. Another advantage is that it would provide safety from the devestating effects of impact frustration. ( Definition Box -Impact frustration is a theory which says that life may potentially have arisen many times, but was wiped out due to severe bolide impacts) The water beneath the ice would be cold, allowing for organic molecules to survive over much longer periods of time. These organic molecules could have been provided by the hydrothermal vents still prevalent on the ocean floor today. With a sufficient supply of organic molecules safe from ultra-violet radiation and bolide impact frustration, many believe that this was the environment allowing life to get a foothold on a hostile earth.
With a barrier between the atmosphere and the ocean, the debate concerning the composition of the atmosphere becomes much less significant. All of the components needed for organic syntheses such as the Strecker synthesis would be provided and kept stable, while the bottom of the ocean would provide a place for organics to gather and react. Following this reasoning, the atmospheric composition may only be important after life came out of the water, when life had already begun.
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/sites.html
Lightwizard wrote-
Quote:True, CI -- I didn't want to complicate it to much for the simple minded.
On behalf of the simple minded may I just say how very grateful we are for your understanding and empathy.
The absurdity of your entropy objection, rl, lies in thorough misunderstanding both of the 2cnd Law of Thermodynamics and of chemistry. You see, entropy, in the sense you attribute, applies only to a closed system. Given that the earth receives enormous energy fron the sun, it by defintion is not a closed system. Then, of course, there is the energy of gravity, and of orbital momentum, and of extra-solar radiation - all of it energy being input to the Earth.There is in fact no reason to conclude the universe iitself is a closed system; there are indications it may be, but we just don't know for sure.
The 2cnd Law pertains to the properties, attributes, and tendencies of energy, not to objects, molecules, or organisms. However, a basic understanding of chemistry makes plain that the 2cnd Law is no predictor of disorder, but rather, in a dynamic system, mandates that energy be not restricted to one plane, location, or set of parameters, but to disperse throughout the environment, much a a gas seeks to expand to fill the available space. As energy constantly is being input into the system of which Earth is a component, energy acts continually on everything within the system.
Chemically, the individual components of many sorts of molecules are at once more energetic and less ordered than are the molecules themselves. Take water, for instance - a compound which has inherently less energy either than oxygen or hydrogen, its elemental constituents, and is far more complex than any single atom of hydrogen or oxygen. Within a dynamic system, the 2cnd Law orders the formation of increasingly complex entities, as the action of energy upon atoms and molecules brings about combinations and compounds, and synthesis, catalysis, and other chemical reactions, driven both by the energy inherent to the individual componets of compounds and by the energy constantly being input into the system progresses inexorably to more and more complex systems being formed from the basic, elemental, atomic-level building blocks.
If the shoe fits and I'm sure everyone's been told to never volunteer for anything.
