>Cliff Lundberg wrote:
> >Invoking the 2d law to claim something about organic evolution is
> >like invoking gravity to explain why we spell 'cat' c-a-t instead of
> >k-a-t. There is no direct connection between the complex causes in a
> >complex specific historical situation and the simple principles of
> >physics.
>
> The second law applies to spelling. When I mis-type a word, that represents
> an increase in entropy. Languages evolve similarly. Different
> pronounciations in different regions of a country eventually leads to
> different spellings and then to different languages. This too is an example
> of increasing entropy. The lowest entropy situation would be for all people
> to speak the same language with the same accent.
The 2d law does not apply to spelling in a hard and fast way. People
could develop the same spelling for previously differently-spelled words
through accident or through conscious processes. No specific claim can
be made about any specific case based on the 2d law. And 'specific case'
can apply to anything that is a subset of the universe.
Sure, evolution uses a tendency to disorder as it generates mutations,
just as hot air balloons use gravity as they defy gravity. Gravity is
counteracted--one might say 'defeated'--in the localized event. And
terrestrial evolution is a localized event. In the long run, gravity
will win out over all the hot air balloons, but so what? Ultimate
quasi-philosophical principles are worthless when it comes to puzzling
out the historical specifics of evolutionary biology. To me, the 2d law
is quasi-philosophical because it makes a claim about the final total
nature of all the universe for all time, beyond what is observable,
which
the practical generalizations of physics do not. Its presumptiousness
and
lack of practical utility give it a metaphysical flavor.
> >Evolution to any degree is a matter of specific complex biological
> >events that may or may not occur in a given physical system, be it
> >open or closed, losing energy or gaining energy in an overall sense.
> So a biological system is not a physical system? I would contend that it is.
I don't see how you infer that from my statement that biological events
occur within a physical system. Anything is a physical system; even
codes
of law, for example, can be viewed as extensions of human biology.
Biology is subject to the laws of physics, but the 2d law doesn't have
interesting implications for any specific problems in evolutionary
biology.
So everything is going to blow up or run down or something in the end--
what does that tell me about evolution?
> >BTW, when I respond to mail from this list, the addressee on my
> >reply is the individual sender, not the list. I have to manually
> >enter the calvin.edu address. This may account for the low traffic!
>
> That is probably your mail reader's problem. I use Eudora and when I hit
> reply all, the list name appears automatically. When I hit reply, only the
> individual address appears.
'Re: All' does work on my Netscape 3.0 but it sends a copy to the poster
as well as to the list. Other lists I subscribe to have a reply to:
header
in the email (with the list name) such that a simple reply gets posted
to the
list with no cc to the original poster. This is preferable, I think,
unless
the writer fears his message may be censored by a moderator.
-- Cliff LundbergSan Franciscocliff@noevalley.com