Do you still consider GE a (potentially) valid idea? If ‘yes’, then you didn’t understand the arguments.
2 Likes
Righto, read this one: Thermodynamics of the Origin of Life | Evolution News
And it’s nonsense. It carefully mixes two strands of nonsense:
-
The same old approach I talked about in the OP of considering a system that is in fact open to be closed.
-
The ‘life arose when a very large number of elements suddenly came together in a single instant by purely random processes’. His claim that the path doesn’t matter is nonsense, because the probability argument assumes the ‘all at once’.
This is embarrassing rubbish. Sorry: I’m out of patience with it for the moment, so I should take a short hiatus from here.
But seriously: read the OP, read that thing from Miller, and demonstrate that the OP does not thoroughly debunk it.
4 Likes
Because you are unable to explain them in your own words. You cut and paste rhetoric. You avoid evidence.
It’s true in spades.
And Sanford’s “science” has none, but you keep on believing without evidence.
Or maybe you’re just not very good at identifying dead ends.
2 Likes
Is what Miller says true?
Is “that,” as described by Miller, accurate?
You mean someone who has failed to be a successful scientist says something in a YouTube video and you take it as Gospel, claiming that a huge set of people, all with more scientific accomplishments than Miller, aren’t thinking logically.
The reality doesn’t sound that solid, does it?
Have you ever considered modesty?
It looks to me as though you didn’t understand any part of it.
1 Like
Sanford makes many predictions. All are either wrong, or non-controversial.
4 Likes
It seems to me that talking about entropy in terms of order and disorder is out of fashion. When I teach thermo I mention that only briefly (to say it is out of fashion!), as it is not readily quantifiable. Instead we talk the number of microstates for a given macrostate.
1 Like
It can also be misleading.
2 Likes