Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Skeptic Files - SkepticFiles Setting

quote:

---

1. Evolutionary theory has never fully come to grips with the
underlying causal laws of chemistry and physics.

​

2. Developmental biology has not been successfully integrated into the
theoretical framework.

​

3. Existing evolutionary theory has failed to provide a rationale for
the existence of higher taxa (groups of species produced by descent)
that is consistent with our knowledge of phylogeny and population
genetics.

​

4. Existing evolutionary theory has failed to provide what we would
consider to be a robust explanation of the relationship between form
and function in evolution.

---

“Backsliding” occurs because some think 2 and 3 have been answered.Combinations of 1 and 4 can make the answers questionable conversely once one has put aside the first tautology (under water).EVCers might find that they can reframe the below inversely:

It is directionless ( as taught) pricipally because of Fisher's use of the "random" experiment. Some have questioned that causality can not not be found through shadows of correlations however.
http://www.callisto.si.usherb.ca:8080/bshipley/my%20book.htm
An entropic formulation of this would entail some global to local directions which if of a value significantly supramolecular would also imply directions from the smallest directionless changes to the biggest. The assertion that there is no drift means that immigration does not change these directions but I find this recent commentary to be based not on thoughts of artifical selections of natural selections themselves but rather by attempts to generalize to nature without man.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-24-2006 04:31 PM

I will answer this fuller over at
EvC Forum: The Theory of Gene Frequencies by S.Wright
but I did not bring that book with me today.Sorry, later...

Just as creationists have complained about the lack of an energy converter blueprint in the process of translation and space and form making biologically, one would have had to have said something at least implicitly, about, the efficiency or optimization of energy utilization morphogenetically. Just because life is larger today than supposed in an evolutionary past time-frame, does not mean that life in the past was just as; efficient. Perhaps one might think about procaryotes not as symbionts but simply as becoming more efficient over time?This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-26-2006 11:25 AM

If there IS infinite divisibility then the notion of "closed system" precludes any material influence from such an infinite reality. Thus if a countably infinite exterior is part of the difference between intra and inter demic SELECTION then what is not selected in such a closure COULD still exist but not in thermodynamics as it is currently manifested by physicists. This is the only case I can see where creation ex nihilio might exist but I do not resort to this notion when contributing positively as there are plenty of 'systems' that can be investigated taking historical precedent back to Boltzmann's bald claim that the existence of an atom and infinite divisibility are not contrary to one another.Such a system if defined might indeed THEN be considered 'closed' such that the 1st law would then apply, but I doubt I have consistently been able to extract any other evcer to this side of my para(graph) structure(s).This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-28-2006 02:14 PM

Thanks.No,I did not intend them as the same thing. There do exist countably infinte enumerations in mathematics which posses a lesser cardinality than sets which might be suspect. I had intended infinite divisibility to be a logical operation of division of cases but is subject to paradoxes. Cantor's solution was to seperate potential infinity from actual infinity from absolute infinity. I had meant in the post that inifinite division as addressed by Boltzmann in the late 1800s to apply to absolute infinity which might only survive in some of our more theological posts so far. It might be that attractions plus repulsions of atoms do not contradict infinites much larger than potential ones but that countably infinte sets do exist is not much in question purely. How to apply them is all that I was not counterindicating.see also
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/53352.htmlThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-29-2006 05:14 PM