Lots of stuff, concluding with:
>
>Thus, increasing diversity leads to increasing entropy.
>
>So, here we have scientific proof that diversity leads
>to disorder. This is based on one of the most fundamental
>laws of science, the second law of thermodynamics.
>Yet, our science-ignorant dilbert politicians keep
>insisting on increasing the diversity of our society.
>It is no wonder our schools are in such bad shape and
>that crime is rampant in our streets.
>
OK, I have to confess to being really naughty when I
wrote the above. I gave two clues. First, the following
"smiley"
>
>:-(|)
>
which was supposed to be me sticking my tongue out.
I also changed the quote in my signature to:
>"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
>grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
>-- E. H. Hiebert,
So, what I was doing was deliberately allowing a few
weeds to grow in the garden :). IOW, I deliberately
drew conclusions making the same errors that I was
trying to illustrate.
I had originally intended to follow my last paragraph
with an explanation of the mistakes but then decided
to leave it as it was and let someone else point out
the boo boo. This I thought would reinforce the idea
and might also illustrate how easy it is to fall into
the trap. If anyone thinks this is too devious, let me
know and I won't do it anymore.
Oh, and there was an added bonus in that I managed to
stir David Bowman from his slumber! (Sorry David).
Both Greg and David hit on the main problems with my
conclusions. I'll reproduce their comments below:
Greg:===
>
>Makes sense, and its an interesting measure, but I'm not
>sure any kind of second law would apply! In fact, there were
>periods in Ray's simulations when the *reverse* applied!
>Of course, many evolutionary simulations of natural selection
>produce decreases in this measure. I have done a bit of
>work with genetic algorithms, and there the whole idea is
>to start with a maximally entropic (by this measure) 'ecosystem,'
>and have the trajectory be towards one where one particular
>problem-solving 'genotype' dominates. Obviously this is a lot
>different than the real world, but there are real ecosystems
>where it happens--the phenomenon of kudzu in the south for
>instance :-).
>
David:===
>
>No. Its true, but its based on the meaning of the definition of the term
>'entropy'. The results of Ray's computer simulations of evolution may
>indicate that for a given simulated ecosystem the diversity (as measured by
>his entropy) tend to increase with time. But this result is *analogous to*
>the 2nd law; it is not based on it.
>
David gives me the benefit of the doubt that I actually read
Ray's paper and that his results actually agree with my conclusion.
Thanks, David ;-). But Greg is right, Ray's "diversity
entropy" is not always increasing.
OK, so here's my main point (sorry again for the deviousness :).
In my argument I had done far more than what is done in a
typical creationist argument. I defined the terms precisely.
Not only that, I even used the right equation. I also showed how
the entropy corresponded to intuitive notions of diversity, order
and disorder. Despite all this I still botched up because what
is meant by order, disorder and diversity (i.e. the words used
to help understand "entropy") in this example have no direct
connection to the second law.
The moral is that whatever "thingie" a creationist might have
in mind when they say order and disorder may not have any
direct connection to the second law. Whatever they are calling
"order" may increase, it may decrease. It might even fluctuate
back and forth as Ray's diversity-entropy does.
Brian Harper
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University
214 Boyd Lab
155 W. Woodruff Ave
Columbus, OH 43210
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert,