In hmolscience, Kennith A. Dill (1947-) (CR=2), commonly cited as "Ken A. Dill", is an American mechanical engineer and biophysicist noted for his 1985 energy landscape work on the thermodynamics of protein folding (see: protein thermodynamics), for his 2003 Molecular Driving Forces: Statistical Thermodynamics in Chemistry and Biology, and for his rather peculiar commentary on the thermodynamics and evolution aspects of the Rennie vs Thompson and Harrub creationism fiasco, wherein he comments, among other things, the following nearly upside down statement:“The second law has very little bearing at all on evolution.”and goes on to side with Darwin over Clausius in regards to who has the correct theory behind the drive of evolution?
Dill: In their item (9), Thompson and Harrub (T&H) state that ‘the second law of thermodynamics strictly prohibits organic evolution.’ I disagree. The second law does not prohibit evolution. The second law has very little bearing at all on evolution. The premises behind item (9) of T&H are that: (1) according to the second law, closed systems tend toward increased entropy, (2) living systems are more ‘ordered’ than nonliving systems, and (3) entropy is a measure of ‘disorder.’ Therefore, according to T&H: (4) living systems must have lower entropy than nonliving systems. T&H conclude that biological evolution toward increasing complexity would violate the second law.
Dill: But there's a simple way to disprove their conclusion (4). You can measure the entropy using a standard device called a calorimeter. You will find no difference in the entropy of a living organism and a lump of coal or a rock of the right size. A small rock has less entropy than a cow and a big rock has more entropy than a cow. Entropy does not distinguish living from nonliving systems.
|
| Dill's 2003 Molecular Driving Forces, co-written with Sarina Bromberg, focused on driving forces involved in protein folding and DNA dynamics, employing energy landscape analysis, as depicted. [5] |
Dill: Here's why. There are two kinds of entropy. One is very different from the other. They don't even have the same physical units. One kind of entropy has units of energy/temperature and has to do with the second law. We will call this the ‘thermal’ entropy. The thermal entropy describes the type of ‘ordering’ and ‘disordering’ that occur when the temperature or pressure are changed. The other kind of entropy, a mathematical measure of the flatness of probability distribution functions, has nothing to do with the second law, so it is not relevant for the present argument.
Dill: The second law has little to do with the chemical origins of life. The reason is that the sort of order and disorder that is described by the thermal entropy is not related to the sort of ‘complexity’ that distinguishes living from nonliving systems. Why not? The term ‘complexity’ refers to a distinction that would undoubtedly rank humans higher than earthworms, and earthworms higher than rocks. But, as noted above, the thermal entropy has no ability to make this distinction. In short, heating or pressurizing a rock cannot convert it to an earthworm. And heating or cooling an earthworm does not convert it into a human being. If temperature did interconvert these species, then the thermal entropy would predict the relative amounts of earthworm and human at a given temperature. But, of course, it does not.
NAS (2014): “Dill decided to pursue a PhD in the University of California at San Diego's fledgling biology department in 1971. Initially, he says, he wanted to tackle a fundamental question: how did life originate from a hodgepodge of chemicals? However, that question proved too daunting for him at the time, and therefore, Dill began working with chemist and National Academy of Science member Bruno H. Zimm to understand the biophysics of DNA molecules.”One is nonplused at his dismissal of the second law in regards to the origin of life question? Beyond this, we seem to be descending into either idiot savant realm territory and or some type of underlying religious belief conflict objection giving rise to such absurdities? Firstly, the second law is the main driving force, underlying free energy change, which is behind the chemical origins of NOT life, as this is a defunct scientific theory, as cogently pointed out by Charles Sherrington (1938), Francis Crick (1966), and others (see: defunct theory of life), but powered chnopsological forms, one example being monkeys one example being humans, the latter having been synthesized form the former. Second, the statement "heating or pressurizing a rock cannot convert it to an earthworm and heating or cooling an earthworm does not convert it into a human being", is nearly childlike; possibly one of the dumbest things coming out of the mouth of a published thermodynamics textbook author, particularly coming from one who focuses, at least in title claiming, on “driving forces” in molecular reactions? Third (add discussion).
Dill: Thompson and Harrub also draw attention to the distinction between closed systems and open systems. While closed systems tend toward states of maximum entropy, open systems tend toward states that are at the minimum of a quantity called the ‘free energy’. Is this distinction important? No. You can't distinguish a rock from an earthworm on the basis of its free energy either. In short, the second law only tells us about how materials respond to temperature and pressure. Survival of the fittest is the law that describes how systems evolve complexity. The second law gives no basis for understanding the survival of the fittest law. You can neither derive nor disprove chemical evolution from the second law of thermodynamics. They are unrelated concepts.
