Very recently, Google has apparently proven through their ''time crystal'' invention that the 2nd law of thermodynamics can be broken - https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/g...t-have-created-physics-breaking-time-crystals This implicates a lot of things. We're often told that spontaneous generation is an impossibility because it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but Google have just proven that breaking the conservation of energy law is possible. Does that mean spontaneous generation is a possibility? Are there any species on Earth which may have arisen from spontaneous generation rather than evolution?
1. There's never been any question that the 2nd law can be violated on small scales and for short times. It happens all the time. It's as simple as oxygen being formed into ozone in the upper atmo. 2. The Earth doesn't qualify. It is drowning in energy from the Sun, so there's plenty of high energy floating around to push molecules into higher-energy states. 3. No. All species on Earth that we know of have a common ancestor. 4. Creating an organism that is complex enough to metabolize and make copies of itself is a bit of a stretch from violating the 2nd law temporarily.
I'm not sure this is being reported accurately. According to the description in the article, all that happens is that entropy does not increase, not that it decreases - which you would to show to break the 2nd Law of TD. As Dave has said, the 2nd Law can be "broken" for fleeting instants in some quantum systems, but when enough time elapses to give expectation values of the properties involved, the 2nd Law is always obeyed. None of this has anything to do with "spontaneous generation", in any case. If you can cite a reference to anyone arguing this is impossible because of the 2nd Law, I'd like to see it.
Spontaneous generation is an antiquated idea. But understandable how it arose before the arrival of microscopic instruments and other lab tests that could undermine the appearances it was derived from. Abiogenesis is what you want to shift to, which can at least be commended for not overflowing with the optimism that SG had that life arising from inanimate matter was so commonplace that you couldn't help but trip over it anywhere you stepped. Self-replicating molecules, either protected by an outer envelope or not, would have probably been the initial cases of anything passing as "proto-life". They seem to be either long-extinct or evasive to human cognition. To qualify as or be discriminated as species, they would have to be deep residents of the taxonomy rather than prior in rank to or on the fringe of biological status.
SarahEllard: What do you mean by "spontaneous generation"? My understanding of that term was that it was used in the past to describe things like the appearance of maggots on rotting meat, seemingly "out of nowhere". This was before the invention of microscopy, the germ theory of disease and so on. The idea was that some forms of life could - sometimes at least - just appear out of nowhere, spontaneously. Are you using the term to mean something different?
IF All species on Earth that we know of have a common ancestor and That ancestor originated here on earth THEN Did the ultimate ancestral organism spontaneously generate? Is abiogenesis just another way of saying spontaneous generation?
They do. As far as we have studied. All organisms on Earth replicate using DNA. The OP may be using the terms interchangeably, but they really mean two different things. "Spontaneous generation is a body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. It was hypothesized that certain forms, such as fleas, could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation "...abiogenesis... is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Wrong. You misunderstand the inherently statistical nature of the 2nd Law. Small scale temporal fluctuations exhibiting 'negative entropy increase' are not examples of 'tiny violations' but fit within the modern statistical mechanics understanding of the 2nd law's fundamental nature. Such statistically inevitable 'violations' are a fundamentally necessary property of the 2nd Law properly understood. As to whether the 2nd Law is truly fundamental is another question. I have shown elsewhere it isn't - but that's another story best not pursued here. Wong again. Photo-dissociation of O2 in upper atmosphere leading to ozone i.e. O3, and various other 'higher' molecular oxygen species such as O5, O7 etc., has squat to do with supposed violations of the 2nd Law. Do your research!
The Law itself says nothing about statistical variation; it is simply a Law. As you say - they 'fit within the 'modern statistical mechanics understanding'. But the 2nd Law itself does not speak to that. IOW, small decreases in entropy violate the 2nd Law, though they do not violate our larger understanding of how we apply the 2nd Law.
The problem here is for every article I could quote stating the 2nd 'law' is statistical not absolute in nature, another one will agree with your traditional interpretation. Various povs. But I notice you avoided commenting on my second passage in #9. You wish to maintain that photo-dissociation of O2 and subsequent recombination into other polyatomic O species is a continual violation of the Second Law "It's as simple as oxygen being formed into ozone in the upper atmo."? Well? Hmm...silence says it all. Nothing unexpected here,
I see the term spontaneous generation as being applicable to "smart materials" that respond to certain external stresses in predictable and controllable ways. Smart materials, discover the materials with which we will shape the future Carousel of images and videos Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Materials science is a continual source of discoveries that could revolutionise our future. WHAT ARE SMART MATERIALS? TYPES OF SMART MATERIALS Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Piezoelectric materials They can convert mechanical energy into electrical energy and vice versa. For example, they change their shape in response to an electrical impulse or produce an electrical charge in response to an applied mechanical stress. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Shape memory materials They have the ability to change the shape, even returning to their original shape, when exposed to a heat source, among other stimuli. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Chromoactive materials They change colour when subjected to a certain variation in temperature, light, pressure, etc. Nowadays, they are used in sectors such as optics, among others. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Magnetorheological materials They change their properties when exposed to a magnetic field. For example, they are currently used in shock absorbers to prevent seismic vibrations in bridges or skyscrapers. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Photoactive materials There are several types: electroluminescents emit light when they are fed with electrical impulses, fluorescents reflect light with greater intensity and phosphorescents are able to emit light after the initial source has ceased. EXAMPLES AND APPLICATIONS OF SMART MATERIALS Synthetic spider web. This material is not only five times stronger than steel, but also has great elasticity. Its potential uses include: bulletproof clothing, artificial skin for burns or waterproof adhesives. Shrilk. Its main component is chitin, a carbohydrate found in krill shells. It was created by researchers from Harvard University and is considered the ideal substitute for plastic — since its decomposition time is only two weeks and it also works as a stimulant for plant growth —. Graphene. Its potential uses are almost unlimited: batteries with more autonomy, cheaper photovoltaic solar cells faster computers, flexible electronic devices, more resistant buildings, bionic limbs, etc. All this is possible thanks to their multiple properties. https://www.iberdrola.com/innovation/smart-materials-applications-examples Seems to me that many emergent properties of complex patterns would qualify as spontaneous generating objects. Water and Ice are spontaneously generated substances. Is that not covered by the concept of self-assembling emergent patterns?
'Smart material' examples given there have zero relevance to the notion of prebiotic-to-biotic 'spontaneous generation'. Try hard to control the impulse to impulsively post.
Why don't you adherence to that sage advice yourself? OK, and what, pray tell, is this all about? Spontaneous generation? Thermodynamics? Spontaneous generation Description and terminology[edit] ...more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation By the Law of Cause and Effect , spontaneous generation would require an a prior smart material (such as once living tissue) that could transform itself back from a non-living form to a living form. Why do you place "do not enter signs" on a street no one knows where it leads to. What you seem to completely overlook is the fact that a living organism is a collection of living things, called a microbiome. When an organism dies it is only the brain that stops functioning and maintenance of homeostasis of the biome ceases. But many of the millions of resident bacterial organisms do not die and find another host. Can you work with that?
Reported for prejudicial off-topic response without a valid argument. First time, but keeping the ledger open.......
Spontaneous generation? Has anyone actually tried to visualize this concept? If not, try a peek at this example of the range and size of spontaneous generation
According to Darwinian theory there probably is no such thing as the ultimate ancestral organism - like the "first woodpecker", it's unlikely in the extreme. As far as "spontaneous generation" in general, it's the current consensus explanation for how living beings came to exist on this planet. But it's slow and complicated - many human lifespans would be required.
