|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution vs. Thermodynamics | |||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by EvO-DuDe:
[b]A few days ago I was glancing around at True.Origin.org and Answersingenesis.org and I was shocked to find that they are still using the 2nd law of thermodynamics as evidence against evolution. One would think that all of the intelligent creationists had given up on this argument years ago, but astoundingly that is not the case. I can only think of three reasons why this might be. 1: The 2nd law does indeed prevent evolution,[/QUOTE] [/b] It was/has been obvious to me that when evolutionists perhaps in the 70s failed to heed, the probalistic arguements of ICR as then there was little kinetic or kinematic room for the linguistics of failed public appreciation (of the state of the debate) to devolve anywhere is but on, the destructive reality of the 2nd law -if-no matter the probablility for either side, it went to go without saying as silent as I am today I type. It was as if Pascal was being short-changed. Gould's death as well as, showed me that the equilibrium still is in water and we have not gotten beyond the first water argument of Croizat even speaking for millions of years or billions of Sagan's knowledge. Shrodinger's Negative entropy would be the pedagogy from which this is or is not being kept out of schools and if that is indeed true as I claim it is, then, the teaching of Maxwell's entropy is paramount to the furtherance of biological education without prejudicing the student either way. And since the 2nd law is not established to the same confidence as the first, provided an a priori insight exists here, there-where, it is even possible IN MAxwell's notion (not Darwin's) that evolution in so far as it exists in plant and animal breeding {for instance} that (is that) a deduction of the 2nd law on the same rigor as people pass on the idea of the 1st could PREVENT evolution beyond Dobshanksy's idea of Meso evolution provided the formulas are constrained in time. If we continue to work in the current theory and expt cycle this demonstration may be far from being realized however for social "forces" this that institute thought before action are while here it IS the action or activity that must be allowed to pass or let pass and stop and never stopped as the 70s+GOuld who tried to demonstrate some evolution other, showed to all who can read this sentence now I say with less silence of the lamb.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I will post up and slam but now is not the time for I have also left some unfinshised synthesis on the created kind of thread but with Pascal's triagle and my simple question of what numbers to count organisms answered this time it will become less insane to understand me but I get ahead of our all story line I keep. later.
I am starting to find the equalities that allow both the open system and two thermo without the Mendel proprotion but still I do not know which definition in mathematica this will be -- a bit too subjective even for creationists. I never understood what Pascal was doing. I now do and Robby Zack is not a Riot. Before this was "panbiogeography" enunciated. First keep open or closed that the position effect is to genetic recombination as the arithemetic triangle(Pascal) is to gambler's combination. Rest of theretical biology will come in/with time. Cornell jousted me becasue any new theory, such as the one Gould seeks now in his death, must first find the platform of demonstration but the eilites were only permitting the existing theory-expt cycle and not a pure-math --anthropology one which permitted me finally to have found without proof the demonstrable biology I have always known without getting too philosophical. Pascal converted at the correct time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Thanks, I was not aware of the distinction; but from the condition /; of biology specfically )( if the entropy changes than some of the triple quantites are "the where" which may be form, space or time it 'goes' (chemical equilibrium also at least in part involved) development, environment, and/or heritibility in one instance of theory. Strict Physical Chem only has this all in e^2,whatever the square root becomes on the same in piece model biologically. Of course the statics need not follow the prescription I gave or was given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]
"Exactly which step required for evolution is prevented by the second law each and every time that it might occur"[/QUOTE] [/B] iN MY own approach to the reason Figenbaum left Upstate for NYC etc, I would never be able to answer this question "genetically" (difference of physiological and transmission genetics) until after I had a good handle on how conservation via the 1st law is to be written (for instance in non-equilihbrium thermodynamics generally) but if I take it this specific question has no effect on the integrable form or any other calculus of the problem I really to feel we need a new division of the study even before strictly from 2nd law thermo motivations one attempted an open or closed sytem by, by which even if the space of some of the steps be claimed to exist populationally it is still far from evident how destruction of the environment in Fisher's sense is to be ordinated for any SAME cardinality to Newton's. One could operate wholly outside this idea by using Gladyshev, Galileo and Maxwell but then again, is there some reason that the divisions of forces that quarks begot isnot not sufficient to the question rasied here.?? Seems to me we either have to decide to let biology have its own theory dept or admit that we need to teach students more broad scinece than the current univeristy depts support for each field (chem, phys, bio) gives too much busy work to students but I do not take this question in the same vein. Nice query.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
If Pascal is apropo "on this page" then we ought if we can respect the order of consequences and search for the propostion in common else the dissumulation will thread the Camel, one or two lumps.--My attempt at being a Chinese Sage. The problem with any defintion is only to accept the nominal ones if I understand correctly. I do not know enough of the thermo discourse to say more particularly as to if some overdetermination of simply mis understanding are or may not be involved in the appearence that is visible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I have not been able to figure out who said "the first step is abiogenesis" but I have tried to read the lib about biology not to the point in the process of uncovering what Pasteur's student said about and using the word "proximate" which might lie within this phrase quoted no matter who said it here, but I have sought to find a way to read the protoplasm as something other than a diaelectric.
I have failed to do this and all there seems to be is quantum mechanics as the material basis of biology say by following Pauling's idea of what constitues a chemcial bond. But there are some "out there" ideas of the implication of quantum mecahnics one of which shows how non-thermal undulations can affect more than steady motions even possibly how enzymes work and yet if this SICENCE of an a biogeneic nature is brought up to sensory biologists they take( I mean it was took) as me the guy not the subject is "schizophrenic" or simply to reduce the thuoght "double mindedCarnal" etc. So it is easy to rely on history when trying to situate ones thought on biogeneisis vs molecules to man but when attempting to even DISCUSS the actual science that is current it seems that something other than anthropomoriszing is acutally going on. What I was trying to say is that it seems possible to derive much of biology from matter but not in Cricks sense of syntheziing a virus and a bacteria from the same thought in (out) protocol but that molecules to man is possible IN SO FAR as the change is possible BUT NOT IN THE SENSE OF visualizing the Wolfram fold into any opening that specifies both his substition system & his notion of shells and horns (2-d vs 3-d). I can explain this a little more if one likes. Can someone please tell me if BART started this idea of abiogeneisis here or someone else. I never really find this clear kind of distiction of a creationist and evolutionist that I am trying to read around to the place to post here. A little help anyone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
@
I am quite certain, that this *deconstruction* of '~' and "--" (the rigors of the 1st law of thermo at best) as per needed popularization of 'entropy' that Maxwell called for is still MISanalyzed and synthesized by Gladyshev in MOSCOw due to "incomensurability" of the historical debate between LODGE and THOMPSON continues in that error to "sacrafice" biology (that was brought into modern Science by Galvani) and refuses it seems the book of LEVITICUS but can I, BSM, get the word out?_-NO-
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024