Releasing the Truth

Digging for knowledge…

Tag Archives: thermodynamics

Abiogenesis enigma: Protein’s origin


As you might know, proteins are one of the major “building blocks” of cells; there’s up to 10.000 different types of proteins, all manufactured inside each cell. Abiogenesis theorists  obviously supports the view that these molecules have arisen “by chance”, in a prebiotic world, billion years ago, however, to date, they have absolutely no clue about it, as we can read from this article:

“Proteins are the most complex chemicals synthesized in nature and must fold into complicated three-dimensional structures to become active. This poses a particular challenge in explaining their evolution from non-living matter. So far, efforts to understand protein evolution have focused on domains, independently folding units from which modern proteins are formed. Domains however are themselves too complex to have evolved de novo in an abiotic environment. We think that domains arose from the fusion of shorter, non-folding peptides, which evolved as cofactors supporting a primitive, RNA-based life form (the ‘RNA world’).” 1

So, why is it so complicated to explain its origin? Despite the often repeated innuendo that life and all of its components has “assuredly” originated through natural means, the clear failure of scientists to solve this puzzle can be easily explained by some truths about proteins, its synthesis, structure and so on. After that, no one can reasonably take its abiogenetic origin as logically granted. These truths also explain without shadow of doubt the intriguing fact that absolutely no single protein (even the lesser one, composed of only 8 amino acids) has ever been observed to appear anywhere in the world, outside the cells and high-tech labs, of course!

What’s a protein?

“Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of one or more chains of amino acids. Proteins perform a vast array of functions within living organisms, including catalyzing metabolic reactionsreplicating DNAresponding to stimuli, and transporting molecules from one location to another. Proteins differ from one another primarily in their sequence of amino acids, which is dictated by the nucleotide sequence of their genes, and which usually results in folding of the protein into a specific three-dimensional structure that determines its activity.

A polypeptide is a single linear polymer chain of amino acids bonded together by peptide bonds between the carboxyl and amino groups of adjacent amino acid residues. The sequence of amino acids in a protein is defined by the sequence of a gene, which is encoded in the genetic code. In general, the genetic code specifies 20 standard amino acids;” 2

Talking about amino acids, we’d like to recall another crucial problem for abiogenesis: The absence of self-occurring homochiral mixtures. As it has been told in a previous article, the laws of thermodynamics obliges the occurrence of racemic mixtures, ever:

“The left and right handed forms have identical free energy (G), so the free energy difference (ΔG) is zero. The equilibrium constant for any reaction (K) is the equilibrium ratio of the concentration of products to reactants. The relationship between these quantities at any Kelvin temperature (T) is given by the standard equation:

K = exp (–ΔG/RT)

where R is the universal gas constant (= Avogadro’s number x Boltzmann’s constant k) = 8.314 J/K.mol.

For the reaction of changing left-handed to right-handed amino acids (L → R), or the reverse (R → L), ΔG = 0, so K = 1. That is, the reaction reaches equilibrium when the concentrations of R and L are equal; that is, a racemate is produced.”

Therefore, any abiogenetic theorist has this astounding problem to deal with from the very beginning; without homochiral monomers, we can have zero possibility of a ‘magic’ protein self-assembling…


Protein synthesis


It’s quite uncanny that intelligent people with advanced knowledge on the subject might attempt to conceive hypothesis of such molecules originating spontaneously, in the wild and morbid inorganic environment, because for cells to build proteins, an intricate, complex and laborious process must take place!



First, genetic information is needed:

“Proteins are assembled from amino acids using information encoded in genes. Each protein has its own unique amino acid sequence that is specified by the nucleotide sequence of the gene encoding this protein. The genetic code is a set of three-nucleotide sets called codons and each three-nucleotide combination designates an amino acid (for example AUG (adenineuracilguanine) is the code for methionine).”


Many proteins use more that one of the 64 possible codons to be built. Moreover, that specific genetic code must be first translated, transcribed:

“Genes encoded in DNA are first transcribed into pre-messenger RNA (mRNA) by proteins such as RNA polymerase. Most organisms then process the pre-mRNA (also known as a primary transcript) using various forms of Post-transcriptional modification to form the mature mRNA, which is then used as a template for protein synthesis by the ribosome.”

Oh great, a bit complicated, isn’t it? Please, read the Wikipedia article referring to the messenger RNA, for further comprehension of what it is, its manufacturing, composition, etc; all of which adds up more complexity for the protein origin’s explanation.



The process of synthesizing a protein from an mRNA template is known as translation. The mRNA is loaded onto the ribosome and is read three nucleotides at a time by matching each codon to its base pairing anticodon located on a transfer RNA molecule, which carries the amino acid corresponding to the codon it recognizes. The enzyme aminoacyl tRNA synthetase “charges” the tRNA molecules with the correct amino acids. The growing polypeptide is often termed the nascent chain. Proteins are always biosynthesized from N-terminus to C-terminus.[6]

The size of a synthesized protein can be measured by the number of amino acids it contains and by its total molecular mass, which is normally reported in units of daltons (synonymous with atomic mass units), or the derivative unit kilodalton (kDa). Yeast proteins are on average 466 amino acids long and 53 kDa in mass.[5] The largest known proteins are the titins, a component of the muscle sarcomere, with a molecular mass of almost 3,000 kDa and a total length of almost 27,000 amino acids.[8]


Phew! How complicated! You may ask now: are we finally done? And I reply you: Huh, nope! Now that the ribosome, together with the rRNA and more than 50 other proteins, has finally finished the process, a protein is formed. However, it is always found in a  random coil shape. So what? This shape is mostly useless for its usage on organism, as we can read:

Each protein exists as an unfolded polypeptide or random coil when translated from a sequence of mRNA to a linear chain of amino acids. This polypeptide lacks any stable (long-lasting) three-dimensional structure (the left hand side of the neighbouring figure). 3

In that randomly coiled shape, the protein is highly unstable, breakable, useless for cell building, so, for proper biological use and better stability, the protein folding process must take place. This 3D-shape is known as the native state.

The correct three-dimensional structure is essential to function, although some parts of functional proteins may remain unfolded.[4] Failure to fold into native structure generally produces inactive proteins, but in some instances misfolded proteins have modified or toxic functionality. Several neurodegenerative and other diseases are believed to result from the accumulation of amyloid fibrils formed by misfolded proteins.[5] Many allergies are caused by incorrect folding of some proteins, for the immune system does not produce antibodies for certain protein structures.[6]

Another importance of the protein folding is:


Minimizing the number of hydrophobic side-chains exposed to water is an important driving force behind the folding process.[9] Formation of intramolecular hydrogen bonds provides another important contribution to protein stability.[10] 


And how does the folding occurs?



The amino-acid sequence of a protein determines its native conformation.[7] A protein molecule folds spontaneously during or after biosynthesis. While these macromolecules may be regarded as “folding themselves“, the process also depends on the solvent (water or lipid bilayer),[8] the concentration of salts, the pH, the temperature, the possible presence of cofactors and of molecular chaperones.

The process of folding often begins co-translationally, so that the N-terminus of the protein begins to fold while the C-terminal portion of the protein is still beingsynthesized by the ribosome. Specialized proteins called chaperones assist in the folding of other proteins.

Although most globular proteins are able to assume their native state unassisted, chaperone-assisted folding is often necessary in the crowded intracellular environment to prevent aggregation; chaperones are also used to prevent misfolding and aggregation that may occur as a consequence of exposure to heat or other changes in the cellular environment.

There are two models of protein folding that are currently being confirmed: The first: The diffusion collision model, in which a nucleus is formed, then the secondary structure is formed, and finally these secondary structures are collided together and pack tightly together. The second: The nucleation-condensation model, in which the secondary and tertiary structures of the protein are made at the same time. Recent studies have shown that some proteins show characteristics of both of these folding models.

The essential fact of folding, however, remains that the amino acid sequence of each protein contains the information that specifies both the native structure and the pathway to attain that state. Folding is a spontaneous process independent of energy inputs from nucleoside triphosphates. The passage of the folded state is mainly guided by hydrophobic interactions, formation of intramolecular hydrogen bonds, and van der Waals forces, and it is opposed by conformational entropy.

Only after the folding process, we have an useful, stable protein, with a properly designed shape with its up to four layers, so that the molecule can perform its biological function.

But, remember, many conditions and external factors can destroy proteins, such as hydrolysis (it’s a slow, but ceaseless process, because proteins are metastable, hydrophobic) and others:

Under some conditions proteins will not fold into their biochemically functional forms. Temperatures above or below the range that cells tend to live in will cause thermally unstableproteins to unfold or “denature” (this is why boiling makes an egg white turn opaque). High concentrations of solutes, extremes of pH, mechanical forces, and the presence of chemical denaturants can do the same.

A fully denatured protein lacks both tertiary and secondary structurel. Under certain conditions some proteins can refold; however, in many cases, denaturation is irreversible.[15] Cells sometimes protect their proteins against the denaturing influence of heat with enzymes known as chaperones or heat shock proteins, which assist other proteins both in folding and in remaining folded. Some proteins never fold in cells at all except with the assistance of chaperone molecules, which either isolate individual proteins so that their folding is not interrupted by interactions with other proteins or help to unfold misfolded proteins, giving them a second chance to refold properly. This function is crucial to prevent the risk of precipitation into insoluble amorphous aggregates.


For a further an in-depth study about different factors capable of disrupting proteins, read the following articles: (a series of 6 parts)


To conclude our observation, it’s impossible not to be sceptic of any theoretic proposition that claims self-caused origin of proteins, because it turns out that science unveiled tons of facts that easily prevent any possibility of such proposed scenario:


-Absence of homochiral monomers forming in the environment;

-Necessity of genetic specific information;

-Need for an highly controlled ambient, with proper Ph level, temperature, absence of mechanical forces that may easily damage, disrupt the protein, toxins, etc; 

-Need for specific methods to protect the protein against hydrolysis, oxidation;

-Necessity of having 50 other types of protein already manufactured to help on the protein synthesis;


The question raises: how in the world could such a specific set of conditions be found in a prebiotic Earth? Such condition can only be barely found in a first-class laboratory, driven by qualified and experienced scientists!

You might as well enjoy watching this short video talking about protein synthesis:



1. <>

2. <>

3. <>


Oh, homochirality…

Naturalistic theories have many insurmountable problems, dilemmas, if not for their anti-theistic commitment, many brilliant, renowned persons would never bother to conceive such a stupid wishful thinking, because the odds for a mere protein to form itself without intelligent influence are astronomical, in fact, impossible! Read now some scientific facts against the homochirality to happen by chance.

An organism is composed of countless molecules, the “building blocks” of life. Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral (all its component monomers having the same handedness. Another term used is optically pure or 100 % optically active) to function. All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’. Whether or not a molecule or crystal is chiral is determined by its symmetry. A molecule is achiral (non-chiral) if and only if it has an axis of improper rotation, that is, an n-fold rotation (rotation by 360°/n) followed by a reflection in the plane perpendicular to this axis maps the molecule on to itself. Thus a molecule is chiral if and only if it lacks such an axis.

A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing α-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life.

To begin with, it’s a well known FACT that homochiral molecules are never found outside a cell (except, of course, in labs, under the human, therefore intelligent,  manipulation). Why? Laws of physics, dear!

consequence of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The left and right handed forms have identical free energy (G), so the free energy difference (ΔG) is zero. The equilibrium constant for any reaction (K) is the equilibrium ratio of the concentration of products to reactants. The relationship between these quantities at any Kelvin temperature (T) is given by the standard equation:

K = exp (–ΔG/RT)

where R is the universal gas constant (= Avogadro’s number x Boltzmann’s constant k) = 8.314 J/K.mol.

For the reaction of changing left-handed to right-handed amino acids (L → R), or the reverse (R → L), ΔG = 0, so K = 1. That is, the reaction reaches equilibrium when the concentrations of R and L are equal; that is, a racemate is produced. A famous textbook correctly stated:

‘Synthesis of chiral compounds from achiral reagents always yields the racemic modification.’ and ‘Optically inactive reagents yield optically inactive products.’ (Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N., 1987. Organic Chemistry, 5th ed. Allyn & Bacon Inc. p.150)

It also states:

‘We eat optically active bread & meat, live in houses, wear clothes, and read books made of optically active cellulose. The proteins that make up our muscles, the glycogen in our liver and blood, the enzymes and hormones … are all optically active. Naturally occurring substances are optically active because the enzymes which bring about their formation … are optically active. As to the origin of the optically active enzymes, we can only speculate’

Nonetheless, they (the naturalists) are “sure” of the casual origin of everything… They just can’t explain HOW could it happen, nor can they show the farthest, slightest evidence of the nothingness creating things that violate its laws, such as homochirality! English biologist John Maddox called it “an intellectual thunderbolt that natural proteins should contain only the left-handed forms of the amino acids.”. But it was not for the lack of efforts and guesswork. The famous Oparin once went on to say:

“The probability of the formation of one antipode or the other is therefore the same. As the law of averages applies to chemical reactions the appearance of an excess of one antipode is very improbable, and, in fact, we never encounter it under the conditions of non-living nature and in laboratory syntheses . . . .
In living organisms, on the contrary, the amino acids of which naturally occurring proteins are made always have the left-handed configuration. . . . This ability of protoplasm selectively to synthesize and accumulate one antipode alone is called the asymmetry of living material. It is a characteristic feature of all organisms without exception but is absent from inanimate nature. 

Pasteur pointed out this fact as follows: “This great character is, perhaps, the only sharp dividing line which we can draw at present between the chemistry of dead and living nature.”” (A. I. Oparin, Life, Its Nature, Origin and Development (New York: Academic Press, 1961), pp. 59, 60)

Ever since, many theories were proposed, in an effort to solve this unbelievable puzzle, but they have all failed, as we’re going to see some now.

How can we separate the left from the right?

It’s not that simple! First of all, you need of intelligence behind the process… To resolve a racemate, another homochiral substance must be introduced. The procedure is explained in any organic chemistry textbook. The idea is that right-handed and left-handed substances have identical properties, except when interacting with other chiral phenomena. The analogy is that our left and right hands grip an achiral (non-chiral) object like a baseball bat equally, but they fit differently into a chiral object like a left-handed glove. Thus to resolve a racemate, an organic chemist will usually use a ready-made homochiral substance from a living organism.

However, this does not solve the mystery of where the optical activity in living organisms came from in the first place. An world conference on ‘The Origin of Homochirality and Life’ made it clear that the origin of this handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists (Cohen, J., 1995. Science, 267:1265–1266). The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of N monomers by chance = 2–N. For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2–100 = 10–30. Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places.

A further problem is that homochiral biological substances racemize in time. This is the basis of the amino acid racemization dating method. Its main proponent is Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California(Bada, J.L., Luyendyk, B.P. and Maynard, J.B., 1970. Science, 170:730–732). As a dating method, it is not very reliable, since the racemization rate is strongly dependent on temperature and pH, and depends on the particular amino acid (Gish, D.T., 1975.  Impact series #23, ICR). Racemization is also a big problem during peptide synthesis and hydrolysis. It shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life.

Beta decay and the weak force

β-decay is one form of radioactive decay, and it is governed by one of the four fundamental forces of nature, the weak force. This force has a slight handedness, called parity violation, so some theorists thought β-decay could account for the chirality in living organisms. However, the weak force is aptly named—the effect is minuscule—a long way from producing the required 100 % homochirality. One specialist in the chirality problem, organic chemist William Bonner, professor emeritus at Stanford University, said, ‘none of this work has yielded convincing conclusions’. Another researcher concluded:

‘the exceptional prebiotic conditions required do not favour asymmetric β-radiolysis as the selector of the exclusive signature of optical activity in living nature.’

Another aspect of parity violation is that the L-amino acids and D-sugars have a theoretically slightly lower energy than their enantiomers so are slightly more stable. But the energy difference is immeasurable—only about 10–17 kT, meaning that there would be only one excess L-enantiomer for every 6×1017 molecules of a racemic mixture of amino acids.

Homochiral template

Some have proposed that a homochiral polymer arose by chance and acted as a template. However, this ran into severe problems. A template of 100 % right-handed poly-C (RNA containing only cytosine monomers) was made (by intelligent chemists!). This could direct the oligomerisation (formation of small chains) of (activated) G (guanine) nucleotides. Indeed, pure right-handed G was oligomerised much more efficiently than pure left-handed G. But racemic G did not oligomerise, because:

‘monomers of opposite handedness to the template are incorporated as chain terminators … This inhibition raises an important problem for many theories of the origin of life.’ (Joyce, G.F., Visser, G.M., van Boeckel, C.A.A., van Boom, J.H., Orgel, L.E. and van Westrenen, J., 1984. Nature, 310:602–4)

Do you like probabilities? Let’s see what Dr. Harold J. Morowitz of Yale University has found on his extensive research for discovering the theoretical limits for the simplest free-living thing which could duplicate itself.

“He took into consideration the minimum operating equipment needed and the space it would require. Also, attention was given to electrical properties and to the hazards of thermal motion. From these important studies, the conclusion is that the smallest such theoretical entity would require 239 or more individual protein molecules.
This is not very much simpler than the smallest actually known autonomous living organism, which is the minuscule, bacteria-like Mycoplasma hominis H39. It has around 600 different kinds of proteins. From present scientific knowledge, there is no reason to believe that anything smaller ever existed. We will, however, use the lesser total of 239 protein molecules from Morowitz’ theoretical minimal cell, which comprise 124 different kinds. 
It was noted earlier that there obviously can be no natural selection if there is no way to duplicate all of the necessary parts. In order to account for the left-handed phenomenon, chance alone, unaided by natural selection, would have to arrange at least one complete set of 239 proteins with all-left-handed amino acids of the universal 20 kinds. There is reason to believe that all 20 of these were in use from the time of life’s origin.
Using figures that were furnished by Morowitz, it can be calculated that the average protein molecule in the theoretical minimal living thing would contain around 445 amino acid units of the usual 20 kinds. One of the 20 types of amino acids, glycine, cannot be left- or right-handed, because its “side chain” is not really a chain, but merely a hydrogen atom like the one opposite it. It can be presumed that this minimal theoretical cell would in many ways resemble bacteria in its make-up. In some bacteria, glycine accounts for just over 8 percent of the total amino acid molecules, so we will estimate that in the average protein of the minimal cell, there will be 35 glycine units in the chain. That will leave 410 of the total 445 which could be either left- or right-handed.

If amino acids had been formed naturally in the “primitive” atmosphere, they would have occurred in statistically equal amounts of the left- and right-handed isomers. This became clear from experiments described in the preceding chapter. That means, then, that if a protein chain is to form by random linkups, all 410 of the nonglycine sites could be occupied with equal ease by either L- or D-type amino acids.
The first one has a 1 out of 2 chance of being left-handed. The same is true for each of the other 409. Since we are now figuring this at equal probability for either hand, the probability at anyone site is not affected by the amino acid before that one in the chain.
To calculate the probability in such a case, the formula to use is the multiplication rule, the heart of probability theory. Mathematician Darrell Huff said it thus: “To find the probability of getting all of several different things, multiply together the chances of getting each one.”
To get the probability of all 410 of the isomeric or handed amino acids of just one protein chain, we must multiply the 1/2 probability which is the case for each position in the chain. It is like flipping a coin 410 times, hoping to get all heads. For each step, there is 1 chance in 2, so we must multiply the 2 by itself (2 x 2 x 2 x . . . x 2). using the figure 410 times. That is 1 chance in 2410. (The exponent means: Multiply together 410 two’s.)
It will be easier to work with this figure if we translate it
to powers of 10 instead of powers of 2. As you know, multiplying 10 by itself is just adding another zero. The equivalent of 2410 is roughly 10123.

The probability that an average-size protein molecule of the smallest theoretically possible living thing would happen to contain only left-handed amino acids is, therefore, 1 in 10123, on the average.
That is a rather discouraging chance. To get the feel of that number, let’s look at it with all the 123 zeros: There is, on the average, 1 chance in –
that all of the amino acids of a particular protein molecule would be left-handed!” (creationsafaris)

Well, it’s a bit annoying when atheists, materialistic people claim to live completely exempt of faith, after seeing these frightening numbers against them!

“Life on Earth is made of “left-handed amino acids (L-amino acids)”. The question of why organisms on Earth consist of L-amino acids instead of D-amino acids or consist of D-sugar instead of L-sugar is still an unresolved riddle. In other words, a major mystery of life on Earth is that organisms are exclusively made up of left-handed amino acids. Therefore, the effort to solve this problem is one of the biggest in research into the origins of life, a subject that remains enveloped in mystery. “ (PhysOrg)



God bless you all!

Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism

Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism
Termodinâmica vs Evolucionismo

The debate between proponents of evolutionism and creation scientists concerning thermodynamics seems likely to continue without end.  This is not because the laws of thermodynamics (and their ramifications) are subject to debate or relativistic interpretation, but because a handful of dogmatic evolutionists continue to vocally and energetically deny the truth concerning a simple matter of scientific knowledge:

(O debate entre proponentes do evolucionismo e cientistas criacionistas com relação a termodinâmica parece continuar sem fim. Isto não se deve pelo fato de que as leis da termodinâmica (e suas ramificações)) sejam sujeitas a debate ou interpretação relativista, mas por causa que um punhado de evolucionistas dogmáticos continuam a negar enérgicamente aos berros a verdade relacionada a uma simples matéria de cunho científico:)

The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world.  (Both postulates form essential planks in the platform of evolutionary theory in general.)

(A 2ª lei representa um insuperável problema ao conceito de um natural, mecânico processo: (1) pelo qual o Universo físico tenha se formado espontaneamente do nada, e (2) pelo qual vida biológica possa ter surgido e se diversificado (também espontaneamente) de um mundo inanimado, não-vivo. (ambas postulações formam as essenciais bases, “assoalhos” na plataforma da teoria evolutiva em geral)) 

While many highly qualified scientists who number themselves in the camp of evolutionism are candid enough to acknowledge this problem, the propagandists of evolution prefer to claim the only “problem” is that creationists misunderstand” real thermodynamics.

(enquanto muito cientistas altamente qualificados que se consideram parte do campo evolucionista são cândidos o bastante p/ reconhecer este problema, os propagandistas da evolução preferem afirmar que o único “problema” é que criacionistas “equivocam-se” com relação a verdadeira termodinâmica.)

Let’s first understand the concept of  thermodynamics in its essence:

(vamos primeiramente compreender o conceito da termodinâmica em sua essência:)

The essence of Classical Thermodynamics concerns itself with the relationship between: (A essência da termodinâmica clássica diz respeito a relação entre:)

  1. heat (calor)
  2. mechanical energy (energia mecânica)
    and (e)
  3. the conversion of either of these into the other (a conversão de qualquer destes ao outro)

All matters of physics, chemistry, and biological processes known to man, are universally subject—without exception—to the first and second laws of thermodynamics —hereafter, simply “the first law” and “the second law”. While the properties of heat and useable energy may not seem particularly significant in a debate concerning origins, the first and second laws (which govern those properties and their transformations) speak profoundly to the nature of matter, energy, and therefore the universe itself.  Within the realm of science, these are among the most immovable, universal laws of science, as the following scientific authorities testify:

(Todas matérias da física, química e processos biológicos conhecidos ao homem, são universalmente sujeitos -sem exceção- à 1ª e 2ª leis da termodinâmica— p/ simplificar, a “primeira lei” e a “segunda lei”. Enquanto as propriedades do calor e a energia usável possam parecer particularmente insignificantes em relação a um debate sobre origens, a 1ª e 2ª leis (as quais governam aquelas propriedades e suas transformações) falam profundamente sobre a natureza da matéria, energia e por fim, do Universo em si. Dentro do reino da ciência, essas estão entre as mais imovíveis, universais leis da ciência, como as seguintes autoridades científicas atestam:) 

“[A law] is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability.  Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me.  It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of it basic concepts will never be overthrown.” 

[Albert Einstein, quoted in M.J. Klein, “Thermodynamics in Einstein’s Universe”, inScience, 157 (1967), p. 509 and in Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 76.] 

(“[Uma lei] é mais impressiva o quão maior for a simplicidade de suas premissas, mais variados serão os tipos de coisas ao qual ela interage, e mais amplo será o seu alcance de aplicabilidade. Por isso, a profunda impressão que a termodinâmica clássica causou em mim. É a única teoria física de cunho universal de que estou convencido, que, dentro do âmbito de aplicabilidade desta, conceitos básicos nunca serão subvertidos“)

 “No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles.”
[Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1962), p. 119.] 

(“Não importa o quão cuidadosamente examinemos a energética de sistemas vivos, não encontramos evidência alguma de quebra dos princípios termodinâmicos”) 

“If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for [your theory] but to collapse in the deepest humiliation.”
[Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1930), p. 74.] 

(“Ser tua teoria for achada indo contra a 2ª lei, eu não posso te dar a menor esperança; não resta nada para [tua teoria] a não ser colapsar na mais profunda humilhação”) [vejam só o quanto os evolucionistas são desonestos e fanáticos, ignorando príncipios a décadas conhecidos contra suas fantasias]

“The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment.  The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigations without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy.”
[G.N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.] 

( “A 2ª lei da termo. não é apenas um principio de escopo de amplo alcance e aplicação, mas também um que nunca jamais falhou em satisfazer o mais severo teste experimental. As numerosas relações quantitativas derivadas desta lei tem sido sujeitas a mais e mais investigações experimentais precisas sem a detecção da menor imprecisão sequer”)

“There is thus no justification for the view, often glibly repeated, that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistically true, in the sense that microscopic violations repeatedly occur, but never violations of any serious magnitude.  On the contrary, no evidence has ever been presented that the Second Law breaks down under any circumstances.”
[A.B. Pippard, Elements of Chemical Thermodynamics for Advanced Students of Physics (1966), p. 100.] 

(“Não há portanto justificação para a visão, muitas vezes fluentemente repetida, de que a 2ª Lei é somente estatisticamente verdadeira, no sentido de que microscópicas violações copiosamente ocorrem, mais jamais violações de maior magnitude. Pelo contrário, nenhuma evidência foi jamais apresentada de que a 2ª Lei foi quebrada sob quaisquer circunstâncias”) 

“Although it is true that the amount of matter in the universe is perpetually changing, the change appears to be mainly in one direction—toward dissolution .  The sun is slowly but surely burning out, the stars are dying embers, and everywhere the cosmos heart is turning to cold; matter is dissolving into radiation, and energy is being dissipated into empty space. 
“The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny.  For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible.  Nature moves only one way.” 
embers[Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.] 

(Embora seja fato que a quantidade de matéria no Universo está perpetuamente mudando, a mudança parecer ser majoritariamente em uma direção— rumo a dissolução. O Sol está lenta mas certamente se consumindo, as estrelas são brasas mortiças, e em todo lugar o coração do cosmos está esfriando, matéria dissolvendo-se em radiação e a energia sendo disipada no espaço vazio.”
“O Universo está portanto encaminhando-se rumo a “morte térmica” definitiva, ou como é tecnicamente definida, uma condição de “entropia máxima”.. E não há maneira de evitar este destino. Pelo fatídico princípio conhecido como 2ª Lei, que permanece hoje como principal pilar da física clássica deixada intacta pela marcha da ciência, proclama que os processos fundamentais da natureza são irreversíveis. Natureza move-se em uma só direção”) 

“…there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics….”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

 (“não existem violações conhecidas da segunda Lei da termodinâmica”)

The First Law (A 1ª Lei)

Since the controversy between evolutionists and thermodynamics involves mainly the second law, we will only briefly look at the first law, sometimes referred to as the law of conservation, which tells us essentially that:  
(Pela controvérsia entre evolucionistas e termodinâmica envolver principalmente a segunda lei, iremos brevemente olhar a 1ª Lei, algumas vezes sendo referida como Lei da conservação, que essencialmente nos diz que: )

Nothing is now coming into existence or going out of existence; matter and energy may be converted into one another, but there is no net increase in the combined total of what exists.

(Nada está vindo a existência ou deixando de existir; matéria e energia podem ser convertidas uma na outra, mas não existe qualquer aumento líquido no combinado total do que existe.)

Regarding this first law, Isaac Asimov offers this noteworthy comment: (com relação a 1ª Lei, I. Asimov oferece este notável comentário) 

“This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make.  No one knows why energy is conserved… All that anyone can say is that in over a century and a quarter of careful measurement scientists have never been able to point to a definite violation of energy conservation, either in the familiar everyday surroundings about us, or in the heavens above or in the atoms within.”
[Smithsonian Institution Journal, 1970, p.6]

(“Esta lei é considerada a mais poderosa e mais fundamental generalização sobre o Universo que os cientistas foram capazes de fazer. Tudo que se pode dizer é que em uns 125 anos de cuidadosas medições os cientistas nunca foram capazes de apontar para uma definida violação da conservação de energia, seja nas nossas cercanias familiares de cada dia, seja nos céus acima ou mesmo dentro dos átomos “)

The Second Law

On the other hand, the second law tells us what can and cannot take place in terms of the relationships and transformations between matter, energy, and work, and their respective properties, as well as those of information and complexity, saying  

(por outro lado, a 2ª Lei nos diz o que se pode ou não tomar lugar em termos de relações e transformações entre matéria, energia e trabalho, e suas respectivas propriedades, como também aquelas da informação e complexidade, dizendo)

Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.
The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.

 (Todo sistema, abandonado a si mesmo, sempre tenderá a mover-se da ordem a desordem, sua energia tendendo a ser transformada em níveis inferiores de disponibilidade (p/ trabalho), por fim se tornando totalmente aleatório e indisponível p/ trabalho.
… ou…
A entropia de um sistema fechado não pode diminuir.)

Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began.

(teor. da evolução enfrenta um problemão na 2ª lei, pois a lei é plenamente entendida como indicando (assim como ocorre com observação empírica) que as coisas tender p/ a desordem, simplicidade, aleatoriedade e desorganização, enquanto que a teoria insiste exatamente no contrário disto ocorrendo desde que o Universo teve inicio).

Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction of the second law. 

 (Começando com o “Big-bang” e a auto-formação e expansão do espaço e matéria, o cénario evolucionista declara que cada estrutura, sistema e relacionamentos, ligações— desde cada átomo, molécula e além— é resultado de um vagamente definido, processo espontâneo processo de auto-montagem da crescente organização e complexidade, e uma direta contradição da segunda Lei)

 Continuing to ignore the second law, the supposed hypothesis of a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly molecules tooking place, thus producing the first self-replicating molecule. This phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular “community members” which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell. 

(continuando a ignorar a 2ª Lei, a suposta hipótese de um particularmente vasto e complexo (mas aleatório) ato de auto-montantes moléculas tomar lugar, daí produzindo a primeira molécula auto-replicante. Este fenîmeno é dito ter passado multiplos crescimentos aleatórios posteriores em complexidade e organização, produzindo uma combinação única de altamentes especializados e adequadamente compatíveis de “membros comunitários” moleculares que formaram o que hoje conhecemos como incrívelmente eficiente, auto-sustentável complexo organizado de maquinaria integrada chamada célula.) 

Perhaps the reader should be reminded (or informed) at this point that not one shred of unequivocal evidence exists to support the above described self-creation myth.  Yet very ironically, it’s the only origins account treated in the popular and science media, nicely blurring in the public mind the distinction between bona fide science and popular beliefs. 

(talvez o leitor deva ser lembrado (ou informado) sobre este ponto que nem ujm mísero retalho, pedacinho de evidência inequívoca existe p/ suportar o acima descrito mito da auto-criação. No entento, muito ironicamente, é o único relato sobre origem tratado pela mídia e ciência popular, devidamente embaraçando na mente do público a distinção entre ciência genuína e crendices populares.)

Open vs. Closed Systems (sistema abertovs fechados)

The classic evolutionist argument used in defending the postulates of evolutionism against the second law goes along the lines that “the second law applies only to a closed system, and life as we know it exists and evolved in an open system.”
(O clássico argumento evolucionistas usado na defesa o postulado evolucionista contra a segunda lei segue a linha que “a segunda lei aplica-se somente a um sistema fechado, e a vida como nós conhecemos existe e evoluíu em um sistema aberto”)
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law canexist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system. 

(A base para esta alegação jaz no fato que, enquanto a segunda lei é inviolada em um sistema fechado (isto é, a sistema no qual nem energia nem matéria pode entrar nem sair do sistema) uma aparente limitada reversão na direção requerida pela lei pode existir em um sistema aberto (um sistema no qual nova energia ou matéria pode ser adiocionada) porque energia pode ser adicionada ao sistema.) 

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing.  In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale.  This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory. 

(Então, o Universo inteiro é geralmente considerado pelos evolucionistas como sendo um sistema fechado, então a segunda lei dita que, dentro do Universo, entropia como um todo está aumentando. Em outras palavras, as coisas estão inclinadas a falhar, “pifar”, colapsar, se tornarem menos organizadas, menos complexas, mais bagunçadas numa universal escala. Esta tendência (como descrita por Asimov ) é um fenômeno cientificamente observado— fato, não teoria)
The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
(O raciocínio evolucionista é simplesmente de que a vida na Terra é uma “exceção” porque vivemos em um sistema aberto. “O Sol provê mais do que suficiente energia para mover as coisas.” Este suplemento de energia disponível, nós somos asseguramos, satisfaz adequadamente qualquer objeção à evolução baseada na segunda lei.)
But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity).  Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
(Porém, simplesmente adicionar energia a um sistema não causa automaticamente redução na entropia (e assim, complexidade organizada aumentada). Energia solar crua e pura por si só não reduz a entropia – de fato, ela aumenta a entropia, acelerando os processos naturais que causam o decaimento, desordem, e desorganização na terra (considere, por exemplo, a pintura do seu carro, uma cerca de madeira, ou uma carcaça de animal em decomposição, com ou sem adição de energia solar) )
Dr. John Ross (no a creationist/ não criacionista) affirms:

…there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems … there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

não existem violações conhecidas da segunda lei da termodinâmica. Ordinariamente a segunda lei é relacionada a sistema isolados [fechados], mas a segunda lei aplica-se igualmente bem a sistemas abertos. Existe, de certo modo associado com o campo do fenômeno de não-equilíbrio a noção de que a 2ª lei da termodinâmica falha nos tais sistemas. É importante ter certeza de que este erro não seja perpetuado.”

So, what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” the second law of thermodynamics?
(Então, o que causa a vida possível dentro da biosfera da terra, parecendo “violar” a 2ª lei?)
The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply.  These are:
(O aparente aumento na complexidade organizada (i.é, redução na entropia) encontrada em sistemas biológicos requer dois fatores adiocionais além de um sistema aberto e suplemento disponível de energia. Estes são:)
  1. a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity (um “programa” (informação) a dirigir o crescimento na complexidade organizada)
  2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy. (Um mecanismo p/ armazenar e converter a energia que chega)
Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems.  This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the second law) can break it down.
(Cada DNA de organismos vivos contém todos os códigos (“programa” ou “informação”) necessários para dirigir o processo de construção (ou “organização”) do organismo desde a semente ou célula até um totalmente funcional, maduro espécime, completo, com todas as instruções necessárias para mantém r reparar cada um de seus complexos, organizados e integrados sistemas componentes. Tal processo continua por toda vida do organismo, essencialmente construindo e mantendo a estrutura física mais rapido do que os processos naturais (governado pela segunda lei) possa destruir)
Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy.  Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
(Sistemas vivo também tem um 2 ° componente essencial—seus próprios mecanismos embutidos para eficazmente converter e armazenar sua energia adquirida. Plantas usam fotossíntese para converter a energia solar em usáveis, armazenáveis formas (próteinas), enquanto animais usam o metabolismo p/ posteriormente converter e usar a energia guardada, utilizável dos organismos que compõe sua dieta. )
So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies). 
(Eis então porque vemos seres vivos aparentemente (violando) a segunda lei porque eles possuem um sistema embutido (informação) e mecanismos de conversão de energia que permitem estes construírem e manterem suas estruturas físicas “apesar” dos efeitos da 2ª lei (o qual no fim prevalece, quando cada organismo eventualmente se deteriora e morre).) 
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man. 
(enquanto isto explica como organismos vivos podem crescer e florescer, desenvolver-se, graças em parte ao “sistema-aberto” biosférico terrestre, isso não oferece solução a questão de como a vida possa espontaneamente iniciar seu processo na ausência de diretivas do programa e mecanismos de conversão de energia descritos acima— nem como um simples organismo possa produzir os novos programas direcionais adicionais e mecanismos de conversão energética alternativos exigidos em ordem a evolução biológica ocorrer, produzindo o vasto espectro de variedade e complexidade observado pelo homem) 
Some evolutionists counter arguments quoting things which supposedly increases in order, such as snowflakes, salt grains, seeds, eggs! But, again, it’s not true.
(Alguns evolucionistas contra-argumentam citando coisas que supostamente cresce em ordem, tipo flocos de neve, grãos de sal, sementes, ovos! Mas, de novo, isso não é verdade. ) 
 The “order” found in a snowflake or a crystal has nothing to do with increased information, organization or complexity, or available energy (i.e., reduced entropy).  The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function.  These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of simple patterns. 
 (A “ordem” achada em um floco de neve ou cristal tem nada a ver com crescente informação, organização ou complexidade, ou energia disponível (ou seja, entropia reduzida). A formação de molécula ou átomos em padrões geométricos como flocos ou cristais refletem movimentos em direção a um equilíbrio– um nível inferior de energiam e uma arranjo mais estável de moléculas em simples, uniformes, repetidas estruturas com mínima complexidade, e função nenhuma. Esses não são exemplos de matéria formando a si própria em mais organizadas ou mais complexas estruturas ou sistemas (como postulada na teoria evolucionista), mesmo que eles possam certamente refletir “ordem” em forma de simples padrões.)
 Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) has no problem recognizing the difference, having described it this way: (J. Wicken (evolucionista) não tem problema em reconhecer a diferença, descrevendo-a desta maneira:)

“‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems.  Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content …  Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information.  It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’” 
[Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]

         (“Sistemas “organizados” devem ser cuidadosamente distinguidos de sistemas ‘ordenados’. Nenhum dos dois é ‘aleatório’, mas ” enquanto que sistemas ordenados são gerados conforme simples algoritmos e portanto carecem de complexidade, sistemas organizados devem ser montados elemento por elemento de acordo com um “diagrama de fiação” externo, com um alto conteúdo de informação… Organização então, é complexidade funcional e carrega informação. É não-aleatório por design ou seleção, mais do que por uma prioritária necessidade de “ordem” cristalográfica.)
Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference:(Prêmio Nobel Ilya Prigogine igualmente não vê problema em definir a diferença🙂

“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures.  This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions.  Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.”
[I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]

(“O ponto é que em um sistema aberto existe a possibilidade de formação de uma estrutura ordenada, de baixa entropia, em temperaturas suficientemente baixas. Este princípio de ordem é responsável pelo aparecimento de estruturas ordenadas como cristais, bem como o fenômeno de transição de fases. INfelizmente este princípio não pode explicar a formação de estruturas biológicas”) 
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:

“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings…  The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal…  It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA.  The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however…  The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature.  Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.” [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]

(“Ao formar-se gelo, energia (80 calorias/g) é liberada p/ seus arredores. A mudança entrópica é negativa porque a configuração termal entrópia (ou desordem) da água é maior que a do gelo, que é um cristal altamente ordenado. Tem sido argumentado por analogia à água se cristalizando em gelo que simples monomêros possam polimerizar em moléculas complexas como proteína e DNA. A analogia no entanto é claramente inapropriada. As forças ligadoras atômicasligam as moléculas de água em ordenado arranjo cristalino quando a agitação termal (ou força motriz entrópica) é feita suficientemente baixa ao reduzir a temperatura. Monômeros orgânicos como aminoácidos porém, resistem a combinação em quaisquer temperaturas, pior ainda em algum arranjo ordenado“) 
 Apart from what some evolutionists may say, the 2nd Law poses a very hard problem for the evolution, as acknowledged by some prominent defenders of the theory: (longe do que alguns evolucionistas possam dizer, a 2ª Lei demonstra um grave problema p/ evolução, como reconhecimento por alguns proeminentes defensores da teoria)

“The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that … biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter.  The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue.  Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
[C. J. Smith, Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

 (“O termodinamicista imediatamente esclarece a última questão ao apontar que.. Sistemas biológicos são abertos, e troca (com o meio externo) ambas energia e matéria. A explicação, no entanto, não de todo satisfaz, porque ainda deixa em aberto o problema de como ou porque o processo ordenante aumentara(uma aparente redução da entropia), e um número de cientistas tem “combatido” com este problema. Bertalanffy (1968) chamou a relação entre a termodinâmica irreversível e a teoria da informação uns dos mais fundamentais problemas insóluveis na biologia”)

“We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life’s complex organization.  We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work.  But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order.  A bull in a china shop performs work but he neither creates nor maintains organization.  The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.”
[G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 465]

 (Temos repetidamente enfatizado os problemas fundamentais que posam para os biológos pelo fato da organização complexa da vida. Temos visto que organização exige trabalho p/ sua manutenção e que a luta universal por alimento é em parte p/ prover a energia necessária p/ esse trabalho. Mas a simples despeza de energia não é suficiente para deselvolver e manter ordem. Um touro numa loja chinesa executa trabalho mas ele nem cria nem mantém organização. O trabalho exigido é um trabalho particular; ele deve seguir especificações; ele requer informação em como proceder;)

Extracted from the site:

%d bloggers like this: