The Closed System Of Earth
DarkATi
Revelation 22:17 Join Date: 2003-06-20 Member: 17532Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Revelation 22:17 Join Date: 2003-06-20 Member: 17532Members, Reinforced - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">& the second law of thermodynamics</div> The Second Law of Thermodynamics
------------------------------------------
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system.
- Dr. Henry Morris <i>(Creationist)</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The second law of thermodynamics states that the overall entropy of a closed system will tend to increase every time that system spontaneously changes. This law of physics is frequently misquoted by creationists, who attempt to demonstrate that evolution is impossible because it involves a constant increase in order, and hence a decrease in entropy. Since planet Earth is not a closed system and receives a continual input of energy from the sun, this creationist argument is entirely without merit.
- EvoWiki<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for proving that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to "open systems". However, he also said this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unfortuanetly this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in it's present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which pre-biotic evolution occurred.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a matter of fact, Prigogine's studies were conducted with todays plants. He concluded that Earth must be an open system since we are being fed new energy from the sun constantly. Plants store up new energy in the form of chemical bonds. We have chloroplast to thank for this. Chloroplast takes the suns energy and says, "Hey! Use me, Mr. Plant!" Without chloroplast and/or systems like it, this energy would go to no use at all. Just as gasoline needs the engine for combustion, so the Earth needs plants to harness the suns energy,
But wait... we're talking pre-evolution here. Plants haven't existed yet. There is no chloroplast; there is no plant. There may be energy but what uses this energy? Earth may be an open system today but how was it <b>then?</b>
This seems to lead to the conclusion that Earth was a closed system just like any other <i>at the time of evolution</i>. If this is the case then evolution is highly improbable. It's like having an abundance of gasoline without any engines around.
Someone would need to build an engine, to use this energy. Correct?
Discuss.
~ DarkATi
------------------------------------------
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system.
- Dr. Henry Morris <i>(Creationist)</i><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The second law of thermodynamics states that the overall entropy of a closed system will tend to increase every time that system spontaneously changes. This law of physics is frequently misquoted by creationists, who attempt to demonstrate that evolution is impossible because it involves a constant increase in order, and hence a decrease in entropy. Since planet Earth is not a closed system and receives a continual input of energy from the sun, this creationist argument is entirely without merit.
- EvoWiki<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ilya Prigogine won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for proving that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to "open systems". However, he also said this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unfortuanetly this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in it's present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which pre-biotic evolution occurred.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a matter of fact, Prigogine's studies were conducted with todays plants. He concluded that Earth must be an open system since we are being fed new energy from the sun constantly. Plants store up new energy in the form of chemical bonds. We have chloroplast to thank for this. Chloroplast takes the suns energy and says, "Hey! Use me, Mr. Plant!" Without chloroplast and/or systems like it, this energy would go to no use at all. Just as gasoline needs the engine for combustion, so the Earth needs plants to harness the suns energy,
But wait... we're talking pre-evolution here. Plants haven't existed yet. There is no chloroplast; there is no plant. There may be energy but what uses this energy? Earth may be an open system today but how was it <b>then?</b>
This seems to lead to the conclusion that Earth was a closed system just like any other <i>at the time of evolution</i>. If this is the case then evolution is highly improbable. It's like having an abundance of gasoline without any engines around.
Someone would need to build an engine, to use this energy. Correct?
Discuss.
~ DarkATi
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And then we get into probabilities. This is where creationists start quoting figures with lots of 0's on them, while evolutionists refer to long time scales, and the anthropomorphic principle (I think thats the right one...), and we don't really go anywhere.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No.
For instance, gasoline still burns outside of an engine.
The definition of an open system is that energy can enter and leave. That is all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's check the amount of assumptions in that sentence. 1)"ordinary tempuratures", who says life didn't form in some sort of volcano or something; 2)"Macroscopic", I guess this just assumes that things like bacteria and other single celled life forms are nonexistent since life has to be visible to the naked eye (honestly, what the heck was he thinking?); 3)"coordinated functions", this implies that life could not have orginated from simple life-like chemical processes that although they were self replicating and perhaps shows some signs of life, were not living in the strictest respect (like viruses).
Wow, that's a lot of assumptions for one sentence. Seriously guy, that's weak.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No.
For instance, gasoline still burns outside of an engine.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
True--but when gasoline burns inside your car, it allows your car to drive around. When gasoline burns inside a generator, it creates electricity. When gasoline burns outside--it doesn't really do anything useful. It just burns. Possibly destroying other things that would have been useful, had they not just been burnt.
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's check the amount of assumptions in that sentence. 1)"ordinary tempuratures", who says life didn't form in some sort of volcano or something; 2)"Macroscopic", I guess this just assumes that things like bacteria and other single celled life forms are nonexistent since life has to be visible to the naked eye (honestly, what the heck was he thinking?); 3)"coordinated functions", this implies that life could not have orginated from simple life-like chemical processes that although they were self replicating and perhaps shows some signs of life, were not living in the strictest respect (like viruses).
Wow, that's a lot of assumptions for one sentence. Seriously guy, that's weak.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1--Ordinary temperatures. You know why life isn't found inside volcanoes today? Because temperatures like that are a lot better at <i>destroying</i> life than creating it. We boil things to sterilize them, because the temperature of boiling water is enough to kill almost all known forms of life. There are a few small lifeforms that have been found in the ocean that can survive near water's boiling point, but not much higher than that.
So its really not much of an assumption at all to claim "ordinary temperatures", especially since that actually covers a fairly wide range. Anything from around 0° F to 100° F qualifies as normal pretty easily, and adding another 100° doesn't change the chemistry that drasticaly. Chemistry is drastically different at 1000°, yes, but no life can survive at that temperature--much less be created.
2--He was probably thinking that the organization of thousands upon thousands of molecules needed for a single-celled organism qualifies as "macroscopic" compared to the scale used for chemistry, which is far smaller.
3--A somewhat more valid point. On the other hand, the "self-replicating" features of even very simplistic organisms such as bacteria and viruses are in fact quite complex, and not independant. For example, viruses can't actually self-replicate at all--they need to parasitically attach to a host cell in order to reproduce. Bacteria can reproduce themselves, but each part is generally produced by something else designed for that production--for example, when DNA duplicates, it doesn't duplicate itself, it is mechanically reproduced by other processes within the cell.
Ok, maybe INSIDE volcanoes was abit of a stretch, but how about near them? And you too make a very large assumption when you say that boiling water kills almost all life. You mean almost all life we know, which is almost certainly quite different from what life first was. And I also think you underestimate the concept of life and its hardiness. On this planet life has been found in every place you can think of, from the antarctic to undersea volcanic trenches. The basic chemical processes behind life can be extremely tough when put to the test.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2--He was probably thinking that the organization of thousands upon thousands of molecules needed for a single-celled organism qualifies as "macroscopic" compared to the scale used for chemistry, which is far smaller.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We he was obviously thinking wrong. I'd suggest that we ignore that statement as it is clear the writer doesn't know what he's talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->3--A somewhat more valid point. On the other hand, the "self-replicating" features of even very simplistic organisms such as bacteria and viruses are in fact quite complex, and not independant. For example, viruses can't actually self-replicate at all--they need to parasitically attach to a host cell in order to reproduce. Bacteria can reproduce themselves, but each part is generally produced by something else designed for that production--for example, when DNA duplicates, it doesn't duplicate itself, it is mechanically reproduced by other processes within the cell.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All DNA needs to reproduce itself (in the most raw and technical of terms) is a bunch of spare DNA parts floating around, and one enzyme. The only reason modern cells require such a comparatively complex system is because they aren't floating in a DNA-part rich anvironment all the time, and in the billions of years of random chemical-rich oceans which were on the earth before life existed, is it such a stretch to imagine that such an environment existed at some point for early life?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->True--but when gasoline burns inside your car, it allows your car to drive around. When gasoline burns inside a generator, it creates electricity. When gasoline burns outside--it doesn't really do anything useful. It just burns. Possibly destroying other things that would have been useful, had they not just been burnt.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take a physics class man. When gasoline burns inside a motor, inside a generator, or out in the open, it releases the exact same amount of energy. When that enegery is used for is inconsequential. Isnide a motor it releases mechanical energy, inside a generator it releases electrical energy, out in the open it dreates heat energy. In the end, it's all exactly the same.
Correction--what that energy is used for is <i>everything</i>. It takes only a small amount of energy, used in a destructive manner, to wipe out the product of substantially more energy used for creating something. What's easier? Cutting a mans arm off, or reattaching it afterwards?
Correction--what that energy is used for is <i>everything</i>. It takes only a small amount of energy, used in a destructive manner, to wipe out the product of substantially more energy used for creating something. What's easier? Cutting a mans arm off, or reattaching it afterwards? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And when you cut off that persons arm, you have no taken away any energy from that arm, or from that person, you have merely seperated it. When a great amount of energy is used to create something, that energy does not simply go away when you destroy whatever was created. Sure some of that energy does become entropic (at which point it becomes useless for all intents and purposes), but the rest of it is stored within the chemical bonds of that object. And eventually that nergy will get releases by the breaking down of said chemical bonds in order to do more work.
Seriously dude, physics class.
And also, what does your point have to do with the topic of biogenesis?
<span style='color:yellow'>Seriously dude, I'm getting tired of you're hostile tones. Lighten up and come down to our level, oh mighty one. -Rob</span>
Correction--what that energy is used for is <i>everything</i>. It takes only a small amount of energy, used in a destructive manner, to wipe out the product of substantially more energy used for creating something. What's easier? Cutting a mans arm off, or reattaching it afterwards? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And when you cut off that persons arm, you have no taken away any energy from that arm, or from that person, you have merely seperated it. When a great amount of energy is used to create something, that energy does not simply go away when you destroy whatever was created. Sure some of that energy does become entropic (at which point it becomes useless for all intents and purposes), but the rest of it is stored within the chemical bonds of that object. And eventually that nergy will get releases by the breaking down of said chemical bonds in order to do more work.
Seriously dude, physics class.
And also, what does your point have to do with the topic of biogenesis? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seriously dude, logic class.
No, the energy in the persons arm isn't destroyed--but it doesn't do him the slightest bit of good anymore, does it? I'm sure theres still enough muscle and assorted tissues in that arm to power it while it does some weightlifting--but that provides absolutely no benefit to the poor guy who lost his arm. That's not going to help him grow a new arm, or replace the old one.
And this is what it has to do with abiogenesis--energy, randomly applied, tends to be destructive rather than creative. For example, when you burn gasoline outside, the most likely result of all that heat energy is that something will catch on fire, and be destroyed. Using the energy from the gasoline to build something requires some sort of external control, like a gas engine powering a crane (or whatever). If the early earth had no life, there were no controls--so the raw energy would be applied randomly, and destructively.
And yeah, there are no closed systems in the solar system, really. Some, like Pluto, are so far out and isolated that they're PRACTICALLY closed, COMPARED to, say, Mercury, Venus or Earth. Others, like, oh, Jupiter, aren't. Sol is much fainter out near the fifth planet, but still a source of energy. Earth, much much closer to Sol, has never been a closed system.
Take away Sol for a moment, and let's have a closer look at <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_%28moon%29' target='_blank'>Io,</a> one of the four biggest jovian satelites (it ranks third after Callisto and Ganymede iirc): With Sol gone, it's a closed system, right?
Nope. Io is the most volcanically active body in the entire solar system, with some eruptions being 300 km high with surface ejection speeds of nearly one kilometre per second. Now, a little of this energy is (or in this particular example, was) delivered by Sol, but most of it is generated by the tidal forces of Jupiter and two other moons, Europa and Ganymede, constantly kneading the core of Io and creating enormous friction, which generates heat (try rubbing an eraser forcefully against a rough surface for a while, then touching it on the surface you rubbed with. Take care not to burn yourself).
So even without Sol, Io would still be a hellhole of a planet. I think I read somewhere that maps of Io have a half-life of about fifteen years - the heavy volcanic activity is constantly reshaping the surface of the planet.
What am I trying to prove? I say that there is no closed system anywhere near Sol, and certainly not on Earth. In fact, I'd dare to claim that in order to find a closed system at all, we have to zoom out all the way until our view encompasses the whole universe. And even that is not certain.
Edit: Energy, applied randomly, is indeed usually destructive, as Cxwf says. But usually is not always. Sol and even Earth have been around for far far FAR longer than life has. An eternity passed before the first traces of life showed up. Even if we're dealing with very small probabilities, over time the probability grows. If you play the lottery, your chance to win the grand prize before you die of old age is pretty slim, because the chances are very low. If you were to play the lottery for one million years, you'd be almost guaranteed a win - you'd probably score several. I think we can all agree - if nothing else, for the sake of the argument - that abiogenesis is not a common occurrence. But given a large enough timeframe, the chance grows substantially.
I think you're applying the analogy to things that dont really fit. At the point in Earth's history we're talking about, there really is no 'destroying', just changing. a lightning strike kills a large multicellular creature, but it also acts as an enabler for different chemical reactions to take place, allowing chemical compounds vital to life to be created in the first place.
EDIT: What theclam said. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
No, the energy in the persons arm isn't destroyed--but it doesn't do him the slightest bit of good anymore, does it? I'm sure theres still enough muscle and assorted tissues in that arm to power it while it does some weightlifting--but that provides absolutely no benefit to the poor guy who lost his arm. That's not going to help him grow a new arm, or replace the old one.
And this is what it has to do with abiogenesis--energy, randomly applied, tends to be destructive rather than creative. For example, when you burn gasoline outside, the most likely result of all that heat energy is that something will catch on fire, and be destroyed. Using the energy from the gasoline to build something requires some sort of external control, like a gas engine powering a crane (or whatever). If the early earth had no life, there were no controls--so the raw energy would be applied randomly, and destructively. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment</a>
H2O + CH4 + NH3 + H2 + Energy = Complex Organic Molecules
The experiment replicates a possible pre-life environment on Earth. Random energy applied to matter resulted in molecules that are used in DNA-->protein synthesis. Random energy isn't necessarily destructive.
No, the energy in the persons arm isn't destroyed--but it doesn't do him the slightest bit of good anymore, does it? I'm sure theres still enough muscle and assorted tissues in that arm to power it while it does some weightlifting--but that provides absolutely no benefit to the poor guy who lost his arm. That's not going to help him grow a new arm, or replace the old one.
And this is what it has to do with abiogenesis--energy, randomly applied, tends to be destructive rather than creative. For example, when you burn gasoline outside, the most likely result of all that heat energy is that something will catch on fire, and be destroyed. Using the energy from the gasoline to build something requires some sort of external control, like a gas engine powering a crane (or whatever). If the early earth had no life, there were no controls--so the raw energy would be applied randomly, and destructively. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment</a>
H2O + CH4 + NH3 + H2 + Energy = Complex Organic Molecules
The experiment replicates a possible pre-life environment on Earth. Random energy applied to matter resulted in molecules that are used in DNA-->protein synthesis. Random energy isn't necessarily destructive. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh, I stand thoroughly corrected. But you're right: Destruction only make sense from a complex lifeform's point of view. Simple or semi-simple chemical compounds know no destruction, only change.
No, the energy in the persons arm isn't destroyed--but it doesn't do him the slightest bit of good anymore, does it? I'm sure theres still enough muscle and assorted tissues in that arm to power it while it does some weightlifting--but that provides absolutely no benefit to the poor guy who lost his arm. That's not going to help him grow a new arm, or replace the old one. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, now you're just waaaaaay off topic. Regorwing a man's arm has nothing to do with the concept of biogenesis, as an arm is an extremely complex system comprising millions of cells, each of which is far more complicated than need be for life.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And this is what it has to do with abiogenesis--energy, randomly applied, tends to be destructive rather than creative. For example, when you burn gasoline outside, the most likely result of all that heat energy is that something will catch on fire, and be destroyed. Using the energy from the gasoline to build something requires some sort of external control, like a gas engine powering a crane (or whatever). If the early earth had no life, there were no controls--so the raw energy would be applied randomly, and destructively.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When something catches fire, it is not destroyed. It merely releases the energy forming the bonds between it's atoms and forms different molecules. The energy released by this chemical reaction can be harnessed for a variety of different uses, true, but the same amount of energy will ALWAYS be released, and it will ALWAYS do the same amount of work, whether on a grand or microcopic scale. This work can be used to break apart or fuse together atomic bonds. Whether it is used for the former or the latter does not depend on how the energy is guided, it depends on the amount of the energy and to what the energy is applied. For instance, if you apply a large amount of heat energy to the complex molecules of wood, it would break the atomic bonds of the wood, because the heat energy applied is greater than that of the energy used to fuse those atoms together. If this same heat energy is applied to a large amount of simple molecules freely interacting with each other, the energy cannot break apart the bonds but it can create new ones. Thus the same amount of work is done in a different way by the same amount of energy.
Darn, theclam beat me to my point.
For example, if you add heat to solid gold, nothing much happens---the gold eventually melts into liquid gold, and if you let it cool off, it converts back into solid gold, and you haven't changed anything.
On the other hand, if you add heat to wood (in the presence of oxygen), it disintegrates into CO2 and a variety of other compounds, releasing more heat in the process. Even if you trap all these compounds inside a sealed container, it's virtually impossible to reassemble them into wood--the wood is destroyed.
Similarly, nucleotides are simplistic enough that energy can often create them rather than destroy them, while DNA is on a higher level of compexity where energy is far more likely to tear it apart than to build it up. The Miller Experiment produced a few simple compounds, but those compounds were still several levels of complexity (and therefore several levels of vulnerability to heat) away from being life.
Edit: also, I would suggest that your post shows a lack of understanding of chemistry, as many times molecules are created briefly under conditions which are very unstable for the created molecule. In fact, the whole concept of "equilibrium" is based around molecules being repeatedly created/dismantled under conditions which are not stable for either the before or after product.
edit: so what you're saying is that the majority of chemical reactions cause molecules which are unstable and immediately break down? I would tend to doubt that.
Well, let me give you an example--an ordinary glass of water. For the sake of argument, distilled water, with absolutely nothing in it but H2O.
Now, do you know what chemical reactions are going on in this glass of water? I'm guessing not. H2O molecules are constantly being broken down into HO- and H+ ions, which, after floating around awhile, constantly get reassembled into more H2O molecules. Now, there are a much greater number of H2O molecules than HO- ions, because the chemical reaction is easier in one direction than the other, but <i>both</i> reactions are occurring non-stop.
Similarly, most other chemical reactions involve two compunds which are steadily transforming into each other. Neither is completely stable--"stable" is just the word used to describe the one that is more common, which is somewhat more difficult to convert into the other substance.
Somewhat more difficult? Please, "somewhat" is hardly the word to use to describe the often highly improbable reverse of a synthesis. Also, as compounds become more complex, the reverse reaction becomes increasingly unlikely, so using H2O, a very simple molecule, is not the best example. The concept of equilibrium might work in some cases, but if by chance a few nucleotides were created, you wouldn't see them breaking apart too often, unless a relatively large amount of energy forced them back into pieces.
As for the original post, Earth was never a closed system, so it comes down to really, really small probabilities for some big coincidences to happen over a few hundred million years in order to create life.
Nucleotides are probably pretty safe--they are big enough to have low rates of spontaneous dissociation, but simple enough to be realtively resistant to environmental hazards. DNA on the other hand is extremely vulnerable to environmental hazards--hence the incredibly important biological development, the nucleus, which protects the DNA from all the things floating around an average cell which could tear it apart. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now, by sheer chance, some of these nucleotides will form DNA. But wait, you say, they'll be destroyed by all that energy! True, quite a lot of early DNA will be destroyed. But you overlook the fact that more DNA is coming into existance. Constantly.
Consider the size of early earth oceans. Now, think about how big DNA is. Now, think about the billion years or so DNA has to come around. Are we seeing something?
Consider also, that the most unique property of DNA is that it self-replicates. So as long as one strand of DNA exists long enough to replicate before being torn apart by energy storms, there will be two, which doubles its survival rate. And each of these strands can self replicate, again doubling the survival rate of all four strands. The survival rate will increase exponentially until only a major cataclysm would cease its production. Since we're here, that didn't happen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Plants haven't existed yet. There is no chloroplast; there is no plant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>PHOTOSYNTHETIC BACTERIA CAME WELL BEFORE PLANTS EVER DID AND THE CHOLOROPLAST IS ACTUALLY A BACTERIUM TO BEGIN WITH. PLANTS DO NOT PREDATE BACTERIA FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, BECAUSE PHOTOSYNTHETIC BACTERIA ARE WHAT ORIGINALLY ENABLED PLANTS TO BECOME WHAT THEY ARE NOW</b>.
Talking about plants 'proving' anything is irrelevant, because plants did not come up with photosynthesis, bacteria did well before them.
Secondly, early life and its conditions are expected to have nothing to do with DNA and the two main hypotheses are <b>RNA</b> world and amino acid world. DNA came much later. Talking about making DNA is rather moot as a result, because RNA actually is MORE important than DNA is. DNA is just, for all intents and purposes a storage form of RNA, but RNA is what REALLY works the magic in cells.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->DNA on the other hand is extremely vulnerable to environmental hazards--hence the incredibly important biological development, the nucleus, which protects the DNA from all the things floating around an average cell which could tear it apart.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Explain bacteria and non-nucleated protozoans. These have NO nucleus at all, their DNA is sitting RIGHT in their cytoplasm right next to their ATPases, degradative enzymes and such. With no nucleus they must be exploding all the time right?
WRONG.
But go ahead, what is your explanation for how non-nucleated organisms survive?
And DNA isn't extremely vulnerable to environmental hazards, this is utter rubbish. I work with DNA every day, EVERY day (being an *actual* scientist who does work with deer genetics) and DNA survives:
High temperatures (PCR)
Low temperatures (Thrown in liquid nitrogen and STILL keeps trucking!)
All sorts of salt buffers (PCR, RT-PCR, DNA extraction methods)
Phenol! (If you don't know what phenol is, look it up)
13,000+g of force (Being spun in a centrifuge)
Can survive in the environment naked for large periods (Consider how modern forensic analysis works, DNA in a hair follicle has been known to last months!)
Being electrified (Gel-electrophoresis)
You are COMPLETELY talking rubbish. DNA is arguably one of THE most stable biological compounds in existence and can survive a WIDE range of environmental conditions thrown at it. If it didn't, we'd be dead and wouldn't that be fun! Not to mention that DNA would be almost impossible to work with in the laboratory.
Oh and the nucleus is important in mammalian cells because the large amount of DNA needs to be organised a lot better than in a prokaryotic cell. Essentially it anchors the DNA and provides a better place for transcriptional machinery (RNA-polymerase, DNA-polymerase etc) to operate. Mammalian cells are many orders of magnitude bigger than prokaryotic cells, so they can't rely on having their DNA just dumped all over the cytoplasm (Simply too inefficient, that whole thing about <i>chemistry</i> comes back again, I suggest a good book on biochemistry for why THIS is the case).
I'm tired of seeing really ultra-silly unsupported statements, please, read a basic book on biology first, or even just CSI or something. Even from there it should be obvious that DNA is one massively tough customer. PLEASE, for the love of pure sanity!
Here is a good place to get started:
Biology. Campbell, Reece and Mitchell. 6th edition.
Biochemistry. Garrett and Grisham. 3rd Edition.
Molecular Biology of the Cell. Alberts, Johnson, Lewis, Raff, Roberts and Walter. Fourth Edition. Chapters pertaining to the nucleus and its function in a eukaryotic cell (And again, it has nothing to do with 'protecting' the DNA at all). Heck, just the entire 1500ish pages would be a good introduction, this is one of the best texts ever written on cell biology, DNA organisation and the like.
To add a final point, before I also lock this topic on the basis of being full of unscientific tripe:
When calculating the chance for life to occur, people always seem to be obsessed with it originating on earth. So they are thinking of the equation:
Age of Earth x likelihood of abiogenesis = Chance of life being created
Statistically, the chances of life occuring on Earth in the timeframe it did, seem slim. Suddenly, ID seems almost logical.
The actual probability is:
Total viable window for abiogenesis x likelihood of abiogenesis = Chances of life
(<b>For all planets in the universe</b>)
Obviously the statistical aspect is vastly more complex, but you get the general drift.