At 03:28 PM 1/16/98 -0600, Ron wrote:
BH:===
>>> First, the question is not very precise.
>What specifically about evolution is supposed to violate
>the 2nd Law? <<
>RC:===
>Evolution seems to state that a primitive, one-celled amoeba eventually,
>through time and chance evolved in increasing complexity to man. This
>appears to me to run counter to 2LoT which states emphatically that,
>without a mechanism or intelligence to give it order, chance causes a
>deterioration of all things.
Well, first of all, the 2nd law applies to everything. It cannot
be circumvented by any mechanism or even by intelligence, with the
possible exception of Maxwell's Demon of course. <<Maxwell's Demon
is a little thought experiment proposed by Maxwell to see if the
2nd Law could be violated by the determined effort of an intelligent
(and very quick!) agent, the "demon". At first it seemed to work,
indicating that the 2nd law could be violated. I believe the latest
word on this is that the "demon" loses and the 2nd Law survives
Maxwell's test.>>
Let me try to illustrate with an example. A common answer to
your original question is development, say the development
of a seed into a mighty oak tree. This seems to violate the
2nd Law at least in its "word game" form involving order and
disorder. So, the statement is made "if evolution violates
the second law then so does development". The typical creationist
answer is that development is directed by a genetic "blueprint".
Well, the first thing I want to ask a person who gives this
answer is whether or not they are a genetic reductionist :).
But the point here is that the answer misses the point.
The genes cannot act like Maxwell's demon in order to
circumvent the 2nd Law. The bio polymers we call DNA are
physical "thingies" and cannot violate the 2nd Law. The
physical processes and mechanisms they direct are also
subject to the second law.
Going back to your comment above, my second point is that evolution
involves more than time and chance. There are also physical laws
and mechanisms and selection.
RC:==
>In other words, an infinite bear market. Oh,
>it has peaks and valleys, like sperm eventually becoming in increasing
>complexity a mammal, but upon death it deteriorates, and eventually becomes
>dust and in a simpler state than it was as sperm. Therefore, chance in
>evolution is violating 2LoT by becoming more complex, rather than
>deteriorating as 2LoT indicates. As Hamlet would say 'aye, there's the
>rub...'
>
BH:==
>>> We have certain "facts" from the fossil
>> record showing a pattern of change over time. This
>> change is certainly macroscopic in character. Does whatever
>> mechanism that is responsible for these observations
>> violate the 2nd Law?
>
RC:===
>As far as I am concerned, there are no 'facts' that are illumined by
>fossils. There are interpretations but no facts. None has ever been
>observed in a Lab. That life cannot come from non-life is a fact that
>Pasteur, through experiments, proved and those experiments can be
>replicated. Most interpretations of the fossil record assume
>macroevolution took place to begin with and a seeming pattern of
>evolutionary change from the fossil record only comes from less than 1% of
>the world-wide fossil strata that has been uncovered. Most of the time
>major phyla do not appear in the sequence necessary to interpret
>evolution-wise.
>
I'm not an expert in the fossil record. I wonder if you could document
these claims?
RC:==
>By the way, as you probably have all ready discerned, I am merely an
>interested observer, not an academian (is that right?). Your input is most
>interesting to me.
>
Let's not forget what Pascal had to say about academics:
"... men such as these are academics, scholars,
some of the nastiest men I know." :-)
Seriously, whether you are an academic is totally irrelevant.
Everyone's input is welcome.
I should add that there are many "academics" on this list (myself
included) whose areas of expertise are unrelated to evolution.
We are just ordinary lay people in these discussions.
>Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
> and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
>chitw@flash.net
>
>----------
>
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It is not certain that all is uncertain,
to the glory of skepticism." -- Pascal