Emergence of life due to laws of thermodynamics (specifically entropy) is plausible

Author: Umbrellacorp

Posts

Total: 60
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@LucyStarfire
I don't need to. Life is everywhere. I have a tree right in front of me right now. I'm assuming you also do. In most of earths surface there are plants or bacteria or other animalistic species or insects. This is easily verifiable.
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@LucyStarfire
AI confirms this.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,374
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@FLRW
@LucyStarfire
Appreciate it!

Lucystar, please pursue education!
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 1,355
3
4
7
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
4
7
-->
@Umbrellacorp
Dallol Geothermal Field in Ethiopia
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,374
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@LucyStarfire

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,832
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Umbrellacorp
Material existence and evolution.

A crazy lot of it.


Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you mean?
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,553
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Umbrellacorp
In the long run, life increases earth's overall entropy.
No, it doesn’t.  Entropyapplies to closed systems, and Earth is not a closed system, Entropy isdecreasing on earth because the sun is adding energy, Life represents a manifestationof this decrease in entropy, with a resultant increase in complexity, Heat from the sun causes a net increasein energy on earth that results in an increase in order and complexity. Life DOESNOT “increase Earth’s overall entropy”
Even though life might cause earth to carry energy for a longer time, in the end, the total entropy of our planet will be greater.
Why on earth would the existence of life result in greaterentropy in the end?  Your ideas about therole life plays in the physical process of entropy make no sense at all. 
Considering early earth had all the conditions and complexity for the emergence of aminoacids and other DNA/RNA components (Proven by experiments).
Systems tend toward higher entropy states (One of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics). That might explain the forementioned.
Most famous experiment:
Nope, that isn’t what “higher entropy states” means, itmeans the opposite, greater disorder and the deterioration of complexity in a physicalstate. The second law does nothing whatsoever to explain the emergence ofcomplex chemicals and organic molecules that became the building blocks oflife.  The process of “emergence ofaminoacids and other DNA/RNA components “ progressed in direct violation of the2nd law of thermodynamics, they represent an increase in order andcomplexity, violating the expected statistical trend towards greater Entropy
We might be nothing but an instrument to increase earth's total entropy.
.You want to be a little moreexplicit about this preposterous statement, explain how we can be considered an“instrument to increase earth's total entropy”. This I want to see.
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@Sidewalker
No, it doesn’t. 
Yes it does. The universe and everything in it is driving towards a higher entropy state. the sun will run out of energy some day. 
Why on earth would the existence of life result in greaterentropy in the end?  Your ideas about therole life plays in the physical process of entropy make no sense at all. 
It is not my idea, it is a theory i found interesting. the existence of life makes earth absorb more energy from the sun. in the distant future, When all the energy on earth has spread out in the universe, the earth will have let out more energy than it would have let out without life. Because life absorbs more energy from the sun. Causing the total energy absorbed from earth to increase. When earth decays, it will let out all this energy.
Nope, that isn’t what “higher entropy states” means, itmeans the opposite, greater disorder and the deterioration of complexity in a physicalstate. The second law does nothing whatsoever to explain the emergence ofcomplex chemicals and organic molecules that became the building blocks oflife.  The process of “emergence ofaminoacids and other DNA/RNA components “ progressed in direct violation of the2nd law of thermodynamics, they represent an increase in order andcomplexity, violating the expected statistical trend towards greater Entropy
The link i provided was not about entropy. did you even read it? i meant the molecules that form in those conditions (which are explained in the link) might come together as a way of driving towards a higher entropy state. They are not forming life. they are just obeying the laws of thermodynamics. life emerges as a consequence. the second law does not state anything about life. but molecules obey that law. and when transitioning toward higher energy states, they might have given rise to life as we know it. because life is a waste of energy.
.You want to be a little moreexplicit about this preposterous statement, explain how we can be considered an“instrument to increase earth's total entropy”. This I want to see.
Of course it means nothing. it was meant in a figurative way. i did not mean to say that that is our purpose or any religious thing you might think.

I just shared this theory for fun. It is not proven to be true. it is interesting to think about if you are familiar with physics. of course there are other more logical theories to the emergence of life provided by biology. But this one can be countered with more than just religious arguments.
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@Sidewalker
Entropyapplies to closed systems
No. entropy applies as a law everywhere. in a closed system entropy never decreases. But in open systems like the earth it is volatile because we have to consider energy inflows from the sun. But entropy takes place. sun is not eternal.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,553
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Umbrellacorp
No, it doesn’t. 
Yes it does. The universe and everything in it is driving towards a higher entropy state. the sun will run out of energy some day. 
No shit, but that is a non-sequitur, "No it Doesn't" was in response to your statement "In the long run, life increases earth's overall entropy.", life does not increase Earth's Entropy, 
Why on earth would the existence of life result in greaterentropy in the end?  Your ideas about therole life plays in the physical process of entropy make no sense at all. 
It is not my idea, it is a theory i found interesting. the existence of life makes earth absorb more energy from the sun. in the distant future,
Where did you read that nonsense? 
When all the energy on earth has spread out in the universe, the earth will have let out more energy than it would have let out without life. Because life absorbs more energy from the sun. Causing the total energy absorbed from earth to increase. When earth decays, it will let out all this energy.
Did you go to Trump University?
Nope, that isn’t what “higher entropy states” means, itmeans the opposite, greater disorder and the deterioration of complexity in a physicalstate. The second law does nothing whatsoever to explain the emergence ofcomplex chemicals and organic molecules that became the building blocks oflife.  The process of “emergence ofaminoacids and other DNA/RNA components “ progressed in direct violation of the2nd law of thermodynamics, they represent an increase in order andcomplexity, violating the expected statistical trend towards greater Entropy
The link i provided was not about entropy. did you even read it?
Yes, I know a lot about Miller-Urey, it was more than 70 years ago, and they had the initial conditions wrong, but the theory was valid, and the experiment has been done a hundred times now, we know for a fact that the complex molecules that combined to become life could have occurred naturally.
i meant the molecules that form in those conditions (which are explained in the link) might come together as a way of driving towards a higher entropy state.
There, you did it again, saying higher entropy in place of lower entropy. The experiments show an increase in organization and complexity in direct violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
They are not forming life. they are just obeying the laws of thermodynamics. life emerges as a consequence. the second law does not state anything about life. but molecules obey that law. and when transitioning toward higher energy states, they might have given rise to life as we know it. because life is a waste of energy.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.  Please translate the bolded statement, say what?
.You want to be a little moreexplicit about this preposterous statement, explain how we can be considered an“instrument to increase earth's total entropy”. This I want to see.
Of course it means nothing. it was meant in a figurative way. i did not mean to say that that is our purpose or any religious thing you might think.

I just shared this theory for fun. It is not proven to be true. it is interesting to think about if you are familiar with physics. of course there are other more logical theories to the emergence of life provided by biology. But this one can be countered with more than just religious arguments.
The science of Thermodynamics was developed in response to James Watt’s improvements to the steam engine in the 1700s, it’s about energy, heat, and work, and their interconversion. It’s an applied science, used by engineers to make things, and it’s dated.  You are trying to use it where it doesn’t really fit, you are applying it theoretically and ignoring the observations. Used that way, it is not explanatory, instead, it serves as an obstacle to understanding abiogenesis and the evolution of life.

Here's the problem, Einstein showed us that matter and energy are different forms of the same thing, consequently, Kelvin's first law needs to be modified into a broader conceptual scheme regarding the conservation of energy/matter, and the 2nd Law of Entropy. We aren't just talking about the distribution of heat and random motion anymore and we clearly have to redefine the definition of disorder. The second law does not take into account the observed fact that natural form building activities are occurring over time. Self-integrated units of matter are in fact observed opposing the predicted statistical trend toward randomness. Manmade systems impose shape and order from outside, and they break down, entropy applies there. But there are naturally forming units of matter, the hydrogen atom, ice crystals, protein molecules, and the biggie, life, are units whose form is organized within. They all show a tendency to protect themselves from dissolution and repair themselves from within when they have been disturbed or damaged. we are observing a universe in which entities of matter are increasing form and complexity in space and time, and they are defying the second law.

Let's take a simple example from the bottom of the chain, so to speak; it's true that heat is dissipating from the sun, so we can postulate the increase in order and complexity on earth results from the net increase in energy. But there is also a corresponding increase in order occurring in the sun by the very process that generates the heat. In the sun, we have a spontaneous reaction, four hydrogen atoms combine to create one helium atom, add up the total matter and it's slightly less, the excess matter was released in the form of heat, that's where the heat coming from the sun came from. But the resultant helium atom is a much more complex assembly, it is a whole that is more than the sum of its parts, it's more stable, it will in fact recover it's form when damaged, and it possesses new "potentials". This potential resulting from the increase in order also begins a chain of events of further increasing order and form, resulting in oxygen, carbon, iron, amino acids, nucleoproteins, and biological systems, life, and lately, man. At the end of the chain, biological systems certainly appear to operate under a different set of laws; life pretty much has to be considered a special case. The second law just does not take into consideration the increase in order that occurs at the bottom of the sun's dissipation of heat to the earth equation. It doesn't assign any value to the corresponding increase in order, or the higher levels of complexity achieved, and Einstein's theory necessitates that it must. The second law is incomplete if it is seen in the terms of mere heat exchange any longer. In the universe's field or aspect of energy, heat is released or dissipated from the sun, in its aspect of matter, there is a corresponding process of synthesis, four atoms of hydrogen becoming one atom of helium, and it is an increase in complexity that the second law does not recognize.

We need to recognize that the laws of Thermodynamics are incomplete, Evolution doesn't tell us we have to reconsider life; it tells us we have to reconsider matter itself. Seen in its entirety, seen the way evolution demands that we see it; there is a direction to life, towards greater complexity and higher forms of sentience, from inanimate matter, to life, to sentience, to thought, to self-reflective consciousness.

Sifting order from randomness – from the very beginning, this has been the driving force of life, organizing haphazard collections of molecules and cells into these creatures with their sciences and faiths.


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,832
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Umbrellacorp
I literally mean what I say.

In so much as relative mind games have no solutions.

Though thermodynamics is essentially what it implies.

And entropy is seemingly contradictory  but easily demonstrable.


Within its own biospherical context life is a self charging hybrid.

Wherein it recycles and temporarily inhibits entropy

Only limited by the thermodynamic capabilities and external properties of a star.


So do I conclude that that the emergence of life is due to the laws of thermodynamics?

Undoubtedly.


Specifically entropy?

Not specifically.


So a question for you.

What specifically is life?

And does it serve a purpose (greater than itself).
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
@Sidewalker
For zed:
There seems to be a big missunderstanding.
I do not imply that this is the purpose of life or life has a purpose at all.
For sidewalker:
Saying the laws of thermodynamics are incomplete or invoking einstein or self reflective consciousness just lets me understand that you are either some deepak chopra fan or do not know anything about science.
You are just rebutting without making sense. 
Of course all matter tends toward higher entropy. That is a well known law of thermodynamics. You cannot changer that.
Evolution does not tell us to look at anything. Evolution just happens. We study it. 
I did not say anything about evolution. 
I was talking about the emergence of life.
I am glad this topic attracts people, but making just using jargon does not make your rebutals right. You need to understand that it is not the laws of thermodynamics to be challenged; but rather the theory itself. 
I am not going to reply to your every sentence.
Here is the theory again:
Life causes earth to waste more of sun's energy. That, in the long run, translates to higher entropy. 
The theory says: life may be nothing but the laws of thermodynamics driving this system(earth) towards a higher entropy state. We call it life. Someone calls it self reflective consciousness. That to me does not matter. 
I was talking about how it could have emerged.
If you do not agree then okay. Please give me some counterarguments. Go study the theory and then come back. Your arguments which challenge the laws of thermodynamics do not stand. They are well known and tested laws. 
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@Sidewalker
Sifting order from randomness – from the very beginning, this has been the driving force of life, organizing haphazard collections of molecules and cells into these creatures with their sciences and faiths.
That is correct. Order from ramdomness. The problem is to find out how did order emerge from randomness. That is to be studied. I posted a theory that was interesting. Of course there are other theories even more interesting.

And refuting the laws of physics takes us nowhere
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,832
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Umbrellacorp
Hmmmmmm.

Plausibility is a woolly objective.


And unknowns are there to be philosophically challenged.

However you categorise them.

Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Of course it is to be challenged. I do not present this as truth.
Although it is science that challenges scientific theories and not philosophy
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 13,832
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Umbrellacorp
Hmmmmmmmmmm.

I would further suggest, that philosophy in a broad sense, proposes theories.

And science tests them.

And Challenges are multidisciplinary.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,553
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Umbrellacorp
Sifting order from randomness – from the very beginning, this has been the driving force of life, organizing haphazard collections of molecules and cells into these creatures with their sciences and faiths.
That is correct. Order from ramdomness. The problem is to find out how did order emerge from randomness. That is to be studied. I posted a theory that was interesting. Of course there are other theories even more interesting.

And refuting the laws of physics takes us nowhere
Maybe it gets you nowhere, at least nowhere past middleschool, but I think Copernicus, Kepler, Lavoisier, Maxwell, Tesla, Einstein,Bohr and a lot of others got a lot of mileage out of it.
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@Sidewalker
Are you serious that einstein got a lot of mileage out of refuting the laws of physics?
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,553
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Umbrellacorp
Are you serious that einstein got a lot of mileage out of refuting the laws of physics?
Yes, just as anybody with even a cursory understanding of physics knows that, when he refuted Newtonian physics, he completely revolutionized the field.  

It's how science progresses.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,374
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker

Yes, in Newtonian gravity, a planet can only follow an elliptical orbit, but Mercury's orbit continually shifts so that it traces out a pattern like a rosette. The prediction of this 'precession' of the perihelion of Mercury was one of the key triumphs of Einstein's theory of gravity.
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@Sidewalker
Yes, just as anybody with even a cursory understanding of physics knows that, when he refuted Newtonian physics, he completely revolutionized the field.  

It's how science progresses.
I don't know who that anybody is. Einstein did discover general relativity. He made some newtonian laws more general in the universal sense than they currently were.
He did not refute them, because if he did then we would have been taught the einstein laws of motion at school and not newton's. 

Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,553
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Umbrellacorp
Yes, just as anybody with even a cursory understanding of physics knows that, when he refuted Newtonian physics, he completely revolutionized the field.  

It's how science progresses.
I don't know who that anybody is. Einstein did discover general relativity. He made some newtonian laws more general in the universal sense than they currently were.
He did not refute them, because if he did then we would have been taught the einstein laws of motion at school and not newton's. 
I said the 2nd Law of Thermodynamixs is incomplete, you are the one that called that "refuting physics", Einstein said Newtonian physics was incomplete, according to you then, he refuted the laws of physics.

Pay attention.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,553
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Umbrellacorp
For sidewalker:
Saying the laws of thermodynamics are incomplete or invoking einstein or self reflective consciousness just lets me understand that you are either some deepak chopra fan or do not know anything about science.
LOL, that's an arrogant typical poser answer
Tell you what, you can pick the science subject, and I will walk all over you in a debate dumbass.
You are just rebutting without making sense.
No, I’m rebutting with logic and actual knowledge about the subject matter, but I may as well be trying to play chess with a cat because you don’t understand the first thing about the subject matter.
Of course all matter tends toward higher entropy. That is a well known law of thermodynamics. You cannot changer that.
No shit Sherlock, you Googled the word entropy, good for you, to bad you don’t understand what you read.  Higher entropy means less organization, less complexity, less structure.  Try to grasp that because it’s important, say it multiple times till you comprehend it, HIGHER Entropy is LESS complexity, organization, and structure. Memorize, grasp, comprehend, you know, try not to look like a complete idiot.
Evolution does not tell us to look at anything. Evolution just happens. We study it.
LOL, typical puerile answer, maybe you studied it in middle school kiddie, but you haven’t got a clue about what you are talking about.
I did not say anything about evolution.
My God, you don’t even know what subject you are talking about?

Maybe you didn't say anything “coherent” about evolution, but you did blather nonsense about abiogenesis, particularly the crucial evolutionary step from matter to life, and that can only be understood in the context of evolution. Abiogenesis involved a series of steps that include the formation of a habitable planet, the synthesis of organic molecules, and the development of self-replicating and self-assembling structures. It is a critical step in the process of evolution.  If you don’t even understand that you are talking about evolution, then you are completely clueless.
I was talking about the emergence of life.
LOL, oh, and the emergence of life has nothing to do with evolution, you are just adorable kiddie. The way you combine arrogance and cluelessness is fucking comical.
I am glad this topic attracts people, but making just using jargon does not make your rebutals right. You need to understand that it is not the laws of thermodynamics to be challenged; but rather the theory itself.
It’s not even a theory, it’s just a stupid statement that demonstrates a total lack of comprehension about the subject matter.

Let me try to dumb it down far enough for you to understand, try to pay attention little kitty, it really isn’t that hard to comprehend.

Entropy is a measure of the degree of disorder or randomness in the system., maximum entropy would be a state of total disorganization or complete randomness.

The creation of life, from non-living chemicals was a matter of the chemical ingredients spontaneously assembling themselves into an astoundingly more complex and more organized assembly of matter that become wrapped in a membrane and had the ability to self-replicate.

For the creation of life from nonliving material to happen, simple chemical precursors, combined to form much more complex polymers like DNA, RNA, and proteins, which are the building blocks of life. These chemical ingredients spontaneously assembled themselves into an astoundingly more complex and much more highly organized assembly of matter that became a self-replicating nucleic acid that was somehow wrapped in a membrane.

It was a physical transition that required a staggering increase in organization and complexity, which, by definition, is a REDUCTION in Entropy.  Your hopelessly uninformed assertion that life could have resulted from the maximization of Entropy is about as wrong as any assertion could be.  The truth of the matter is the OPPOSITE of your contention.
I am not going to reply to your every sentence.
Of course not, you can’t respond to something you don’t understand.
Here is the theory again:
Life causes earth to waste more of sun's energy. That, in the long run, translates to higher entropy.
Life does not cause earth to waste more of the suns energy, that is just a stupid statement.
The theory says: life may be nothing but the laws of thermodynamics driving this system(earth) towards a higher entropy state. We call it life. Someone calls it self reflective consciousness. That to me does not matter.
I was talking about how it could have emerged.
If you do not agree then okay. Please give me some counterarguments. Go study the theory and then come back. Your arguments which challenge the laws of thermodynamics do not stand. They are well known and tested laws.
LOL, I don’t need to go study anything to recognize that you are blathering pure, uninformed nonsense.  You just need to go Google the word entropy again; you really shouldn’t propose theories about abiogenesis and entropy with having a clue about either one.

Years ago, I read an article in Psychology Today that is explanatory, it was about a study of how arrogance and incompetence are related. I always thought that incompetent people use arrogance to hide their incompetence, but the article pointed out that it’s the other way around, it’s the arrogance that makes people incompetent.  Competence comes from learning from other, arrogant people don’t learn because their feelings of superiority make them unable to learn from others, so they remain incompetent.  You exemplify that idea, you proposed a theory that is simply incorrect, you are confused about what higher entropy means, so I explained the error.  You don’t know shit about me, and yet, you responded with a bunch of bullshit about I’m inferior and you are superior, you understand science and I don’t, you never got past your arrogance to even try to understand your mistake, all you could think of is “who are you to be correcting me”.  You are so immersed in your arrogance that you haven’t even considered what I pointed out as your mistake. This demonstrates how you are too arrogant to learn anything, you are clueless, you don’t understand what you are talking about, in short, you are stupid and uninformed, and because you are arrogant, you will always be stupid and uninformed. Because you are arrogant, you don’t understand abiogenesis or entropy, and because you are arrogant, you never will.


Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@Sidewalker
I said refuting the laws of physics takes us nowhere. You say einstein got a lot of mileage out of it, which is an absurd statement in its own. 
He did not refute newton. Have you heard about general relativity? He generalized newton's laws so that we can apply them when studying the universe and not only for earthly settings. 
About the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is not incomplete. it is a well-established and experimented law in physics.
Do you intend to imply here, that philosophy- instead of science- can achieve a big discovery? Or are you still arguing in the context of science?
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@Sidewalker
No, I’m rebutting with logic and actual knowledge about the subject matter, but I may as well be trying to play chess with a cat because you don’t understand the first thing about the subject matter.
How does logic invoke eistein in thermodynamics?
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@Sidewalker
LOL, I don’t need to go study anything to recognize that you are blathering pure, uninformed nonsense.  You just need to go Google the word entropy again; you really shouldn’t propose theories about abiogenesis and entropy with having a clue about either one.
I did not propose this theory. I found it. It is not nonsense dumbass.
If you do not like it then keep listening to chopradopra and self reflecting consciousness. 
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@Sidewalker
It was a physical transition that required a staggering increase in organization and complexity, which, by definition, is a REDUCTION in Entropy.  Your hopelessly uninformed assertion that life could have resulted from the maximization of Entropy is about as wrong as any assertion could be.  The truth of the matter is the OPPOSITE of your contention.
Yes, that is reduction in entropy. In the future, when all this organization and complexity (which we call life) is extinct, and earth has let away all of its energy. The energy let out will be higher than it would have been if life had not been present on earth. 
Which means, earth, as a system, will have been driving towards higher entropy. 
Now, it is clear that you just saw something on google about this and just want to argue here without any reason, but do not make it this obvious. 
And yes we can have a debate about anything you want anytime.
Umbrellacorp
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 354
2
4
7
Umbrellacorp's avatar
Umbrellacorp
2
4
7
-->
@Sidewalker
You are so immersed in your arrogance that you haven’t even considered what I pointed out as your mistake. This demonstrates how you are too arrogant to learn anything, you are clueless, you don’t understand what you are talking about, in short, you are stupid and uninformed, and because you are arrogant, you will always be stupid and uninformed. Because you are arrogant, you don’t understand abiogenesis or entropy, and because you are arrogant, you never will.
I am indeed an arrogant.
But i doubt you even knew anything about abiogenesis and entropy before seeing my post.
Considering you hit me with a deepak chopra line and invoked einstein needlessly.
You will get there one day mate.