Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mutations Made Easy
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 52 (310552)
05-09-2006 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Hyroglyphx
05-09-2006 12:10 PM


Re: Gene transfer
Hello, nemesis. I admit that I am now confused as to your misunderstanding of this topic: in your own words:
quote:
...all systems, whether open or closed, will always tend toward disorder w/o the intervention of newly introduced energy.
Your own words recognize that it is possible for systems to achieve greater order if energy can be introduced. That is what happens in biological systems; animals eat, and plants photosynthesize, and some bacteria can extract energy for high energy inorganic compounds.
So what exactly is the problem here?

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-09-2006 12:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
scoff
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 01-20-2006


Message 32 of 52 (310848)
05-10-2006 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Quetzal
05-08-2006 5:26 PM


Re: Gene transfer
Since I've never been able to figure out how to post equations to this board
Maybe this site will help the mathematicians here. It's from MIT's website and offers math fonts for use on the web.
Not where you expected to be? | Information Systems & Technology

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Quetzal, posted 05-08-2006 5:26 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Quetzal, posted 05-10-2006 8:18 PM scoff has replied
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 05-10-2006 8:25 PM scoff has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 33 of 52 (310886)
05-10-2006 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by scoff
05-10-2006 7:09 PM


Re: Gene transfer
Hey, thanks scoff. I'll check it out. Maybe there's hope after all...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by scoff, posted 05-10-2006 7:09 PM scoff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by scoff, posted 05-10-2006 10:25 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 34 of 52 (310887)
05-10-2006 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by scoff
05-10-2006 7:09 PM


Math fonts (OT)
It isn't very encouraging. In order to use MathML, I must first persuade the world to install the needed fonts on their browser.
However, I if format as a PDF file (with "pdflatex" for example), then most people can already see the math that way.
Something that just works is better than something that requires the world to change before it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by scoff, posted 05-10-2006 7:09 PM scoff has not replied

  
scoff
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 01-20-2006


Message 35 of 52 (310906)
05-10-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Quetzal
05-10-2006 8:18 PM


Re: Gene transfer
Quetzal writes:
Hey, thanks scoff. I'll check it out. Maybe there's hope after all...
I remembered reading your post about having difficulty posting equations when I came across a link for this at a science site. I thought it might be helpful, but from what NWR posted I'm afraid you're in for a disappointment.
The only other suggestion I could make is a screen capture program that outputs in .jpg format. I know there are free ones available on the web.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Quetzal, posted 05-10-2006 8:18 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 52 (312035)
05-15-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Quetzal
05-09-2006 1:08 PM


Re: Gene transfer
"RNA-first" hypothesis.
I'm aware that Morowitz is an RNA-frist proponent, which admittedly makes the only quasi-reasonbale approach to abiogenesis. Morowitz postulates that RNA predates DNA and protein and that RNA acts as the catalyst for self-replication. But even this has the chicken-egg problem attached to it. In other words, which came first, the chicken or the egg? How would ever really know? But this is detracting from my premise. My sole purpose for mentioning Morowitz is that he provides a basis for the 2nd law to exist in open systems and that he provides an astronomical figure for the commencement of abiogenesis - both of which has been argued against me since the beginning of the thread by multiple people. Whatever other conclusions have arose in your mind are inconsequential.
Right. Which is where the sun comes in - providing energy to overcome local entropy. Therefore thermodynamics has no negative implications for evolution. Enough, already.
I don't think we can say that with any measure of truth. The earth is using up energy provided by the sun which follows the 1st law that energy isn't created or destroyed, but rather transmitted. But the suns energy is becoming less available with time. The influx of energy into an open system would not decrease entropy. Actually, the added heat energy would increase the rate at which things deteriorate. The classic pro-evolution stance on it is that it takes energy to work, which we gather from food, which directly comes from photosynthesis from the suns energry. But this does nothing to explain how we should increase in complexity and autonomy and moreover, how the sun should be used to maintain it. Evolutionary theory tacitly asserts that life increases in complexity. Therefore, that defies the second law.
"The contribution of thermodynamics to theoretical biology is absolute negation of automatic commencement or automatic maitenance of life." -Lord Kelvin
"Mostly...deletions from the genome" is what's unfactual.
Okay, so your objection lies with my not mentioning transpositions and insertions aiding in mutation? Okay. Not a problem.
quote:
Without certain enzymes, free radicals can affect cellular activity. They can corrupt the integrity of any cell by carcinogenesis if left to proliferate. They can and do accumulate when left unchecked. You keep breaking things down to subatomc particles when it isn't necessary to do so. We might just as well speak about quarks if we were going to reduce things into nanoparticles.
Parsing this it appears you are equivocating on free radical = specific cell = DNA repair mechanism. You couldn't be more wrong. I explained what free radicals were, explained how they can damage cells. None of which you've acknowledged. If this is the way you are going to be conducting this discussion, it's going to be a short conversation.
I didn't acknowledge it??? That was my only point. Free Radicals effect cellular activity and aid in the causation and proliferation of many mutations. That's all I've said, that's all I've ever meant; any guesstimate on your part beyond that is of your own devise.
Plaisted ignoring this factor pretty much renders his entire exercise moot. Since he's a very intelligent individual, and therefore knows of what he speaks, the fact that he didn't take this into consideration indicates to me that the omission was deliberate.
Plaisted gives several referrences to overall population. I'm not sure what you mean. I thought it was very clear and concise:
"Suppose a population has an average of n harmful mutations per individual. Suppose N is the total number of base pairs. Assume N >> n (N is much larger than n). Then the probability of a harmful mutation at a particular base pair will be n/N and the chance of no harmful mutation will be 1 - n/N, which is nearly 1. Now, the number of mutations per individual will be a binomial distribution. Let p be n/N and q be 1 - n/N; then the mean is Np which is n, and the standard deviation is sqrt(Npq) which is about sqrt(n)."
"Suppose that an individual survives if at least 439 copies of this gene are uncorrupted, but if all 440 copies have a harmful mutation, the individual will die. Then about 1/40 of the population will die, and each such individual has 40 extra harmful mutations. In this way, the death of one individual removes an excess of 40 harmful mutations from the population. This means that the population can endure one mutation per generation at equilibrium with only 1/40 of the zygotes dying due to harmful mutations. So we obtain a considerable improvement in this way. In fact, it may be that organisms in harsh environments make use of this mechanism to improve their ability to endure harmful mutations."
"We now consider whether beneficial mutations can counteract the decline of a population due to high rates of harmful mutation. In the first place, it is not reasonable to expect a beneficial mutation to cancel out the loss of function of more than one gene (and even this is unlikely). Suppose a beneficial mutation occurs in about 10^-9 of the gametes. Suppose the fraction of the population having the gene knocked out is 10^-6. Then the selective advantage of this mutation is at most 10^-6, so its equilibrium frequency will be 10^-3. This means that only one in a thousand individuals with this gene knocked out will be helped by the beneficial mutation. Thus its effect is essentially zero. In fact, the situation is much worse. The selective advantage is so small that it will take nearly 10^-6 generations for the frequency of this beneficial mutation to double, to 2*10^-9. By this time the population will long since have died out due to error catastrophe."
"genes have other functions, too, the loss of X, Y, or Z by itself will have a significant selective disadvantage, so the fraction of the population with X, Y, or Z knocked out will be kept small. This means that the fraction of the population with all 3 knocked out is essentially zero. This is a way of insuring that the function F is always performed, and that certain defects never occur. Such a mechanism might prevent gross physical abnormalities or other conditions that could cause great suffering. If such a mechanism is in operation, it could be seen as an evidence of design in creation."
There is no omission. In fact, he clarifies his intent by giving subdivisions of mutation rates per population and per chance mutation. There is no need to further discuss the lost population because they have no bearing on the rest of the equation or the existing population. He isn't speaking on an individual basis, but of the mutation rates in any given populace.
On the contrary, not taking into consideration the fact that deleterious mutations - and even neutral mutations, since carrying around all that garbage does have an energy impact, however slight - will have a negative impact on the individual's fitness, is once again ignoring the action of natural selection,
"Let us consider the possible values for Q(n), where n is the average number of harmful mutations per individual in the population. If Q(n) is about 1/2, then the slope at n is at most 1/2n and we can expect about half of all individuals to die. There will not be much difference in the death rate for individuals in the population, since most of them will have a number of mutations differing from n by at most one or two times sqrt(n). A detailed calculation shows that the population can tolerate at most about Q(n)/(1 - Q(n)) mutations per generation. If Q(n) is 1/2, then this is at most one mutation per generation. If Q(n) is 3/4, then this is three mutations per generation. So we see that a large mutation rate will imply that most of the zygotes die and the species will be at a terrible handicap of fitness. This calculation assumes that the derivative of Q(x) with respect to x is constant up to about n; in fact, it will probably decrease, making the slope much smaller at n. This would mean that the population could tolerate only a much smaller rate of mutation."
There is no omission. He's not speaking soley of individual mutation, but how individual mutation can or cannot affect a population.
Only in a small, completely isolated population does the cumulative effect of sequential mutations possibly cause the kind of inbreeding depression Plaisted refers to.
No, he's agreeing with the fact that isolation and mutation can cause subspecies, which can be exemplified in Darwin's finches. He's explaining how mutations cannot propagate a significant taxonomical change from mutations, but rather can and do cause subspecies. And if that was the case it would be painfully evident by now.
Wow, this is so wrong I'm not sure where to begin. In the first place, it doesn't matter how many adult heterozygotes you've got. 25% of their offspring (no matter how many there are) are statistically likely to develop full-blown SCA. 50% will be heterozygotes, and 25% won't have the trait at all.
If all that is needed is two heterozygous carriers to mate in order to create a homozygous trait in the offspring, how could the immunity proliferate and not the disease?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Quetzal, posted 05-09-2006 1:08 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 05-15-2006 2:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 05-15-2006 3:03 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2006 4:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 37 of 52 (312040)
05-15-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Hyroglyphx
05-15-2006 2:48 PM


Get some things clear
NJ, get this very clear --- You do not understand thermodynamics at all!
There is, to repeat for the umpteenth time, no thermodynamic problem for evolutionary theory! This is a fact. Your lack of understand not withstanding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-15-2006 2:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 52 (312044)
05-15-2006 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Hyroglyphx
05-15-2006 2:48 PM


Re: Gene transfer
quote:
The influx of energy into an open system would not decrease entropy.
I don't understand your continued confusion on this topic, despite that it has been explained to you several times by people who understand it. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The second law of thermodynamics states that the quantity dQ/T integrated between the beginning and ending states of a closed system cannot decrease. But once the system is open, and especially if there is an input of energy into the system, the is no longer true; the entropy can decrease in an open system provided there is a source of free energy.
No one is claiming that the input of energy is by itself sufficient to ensure that the entropy will decrease. What people are saying is that once there is a source of energy, there is the possibility for the entropy of an open system to decrease, and so the second law no longer applies.
This is freshman level physics. It is mystifying to me how it is that you cannot seem to grasp this even though several people have been trying to explain this to you.
-
quote:
Actually, the added heat energy would increase the rate at which things deteriorate.
Actually, this is not true at all.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Corrected a minor typo.
Edited by Chiroptera, : And a not so minor typo.

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-15-2006 2:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by scoff, posted 05-15-2006 4:58 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2006 10:39 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 39 of 52 (312085)
05-15-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Hyroglyphx
05-15-2006 2:48 PM


Re: Gene transfer
I'm aware that Morowitz is an RNA-frist proponent, which admittedly makes the only quasi-reasonbale approach to abiogenesis.
Actually no. He's a membrane-firster, as I pointed out twice now. And again, he uses thermodynamics to explain why energy-free lipid bilayers are the first things to form. Gibbs free energy state, remember? Beyond that, almost everybody involved in origin-of-life research says that RNA pre-dated DNA. What came before RNA is the discussion, as well as how. Enough on thermodynamics already.
But the suns energy is becoming less available with time. The influx of energy into an open system would not decrease entropy.
Where do you get this? In another few billion years, the sun's energy output will decrease to the point where it will start to affect life processes on Earth. Not before. Up to that point, there is waaaay more energy released by the sun than can be used up under current conditions. Something really drastic will have to change before there isn't enough energy for evolution to occur here. Local entropy decreases in an open system as long as there's an equivalent increase somewhere else. As you pointed out, the sun is using up energy - hence increasing entropy. Earth, and specifically life, is the beneficiary of decreasing entropy permitted by the sun's increasing entropy. It's called an energy gradient. Look it up.
The influx of energy into an open system would not decrease entropy. Actually, the added heat energy would increase the rate at which things deteriorate.
Okay - now explain how this works. There are probably any number of physicists and physics buffs on this board who would be fascinated to hear your revolutionary overthrow of thermodynamics.
The classic pro-evolution stance on it is that it takes energy to work, which we gather from food, which directly comes from photosynthesis from the suns energry. But this does nothing to explain how we should increase in complexity and autonomy and moreover, how the sun should be used to maintain it. Evolutionary theory tacitly asserts that life increases in complexity.
No, actually. This is incorrect. Life is a thermodynamically dissipative process. As long as there's sufficient energy gradient, thermodynamics actually mandates an increase in order (i.e., complexity). Historical, evolutionary, and environmental constraints are what act occasionally to reverse this trend. Although I doubt you'll read it, others might find Schneider ED, Kay JJ, 1995, Order from Disorder: The Thermodynamics of Complexity in Biology an interesting read.
didn't acknowledge it??? That was my only point. Free Radicals effect cellular activity and aid in the causation and proliferation of many mutations. That's all I've said, that's all I've ever meant; any guesstimate on your part beyond that is of your own devise.
It's not a "guesstimate". I can only go by what you say in print. Go back and look again at the first post you made about "free radicals". Did you or did you not say that "free radicals" "corrupt" cells which can then go on and "corrupt" other cells, if it weren't for the action of "DNA repair cells"? Do you not see how utterly ludicrous this sounds?
Plaisted gives several referrences to overall population.
It is apparent that not only don't you know what Plaisted's arguments consist of, but you don't understand what my objections to his argument were all about. The bits you cut and pasted from his "essay" don't even refer to the parts I posted in counterpoint. I strongly suggest you move on to another topic in this thread where you at least understand the argument of the guy you're quoting to support your point.
No, he's agreeing with the fact that isolation and mutation can cause subspecies, which can be exemplified in Darwin's finches. He's explaining how mutations cannot propagate a significant taxonomical change from mutations, but rather can and do cause subspecies. And if that was the case it would be painfully evident by now.
No, he's not. His central claim is that any mutation - beneficial or not - will build up in a population to the point of mutational overload causing the population to go extinct. He doesn't even MENTION subspecies, Galapagos Finches, or anything else on those lines. Did you even read the essay?
If all that is needed is two heterozygous carriers to mate in order to create a homozygous trait in the offspring, how could the immunity proliferate and not the disease?
Right, two heterozygous individuals mate, 25% of their offspring will be homozygous for the trait, and will develop full-blown SCA. 50% will be heterozygous carriers, and 25% won't have anything to do with the disease. If a heterozygous carrier and a non-carrier mate, 50% of the offspring will be carriers, 50% won't have the trait at all. Only when the first case pertains will the disease be continued in the population. Since there are orders of magnitude more non-carriers than carriers, statistically carriers will likely mate with non-carriers. Hence the trait is maintained at a low level, whereas the disease is removed both by selection and drift. Get it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-15-2006 2:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2006 6:47 PM Quetzal has replied

  
scoff
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 01-20-2006


Message 40 of 52 (312089)
05-15-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Chiroptera
05-15-2006 3:03 PM


Re: Gene transfer
Chiroptera writes:
quote:
Actually, the added heat energy would increase the rate at which things deteriorate.
Actually, this is not true at all.
I came across this article recently where scientists were reporting the results of a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Their conclusion was "[p]lants and animals living in warm, tropical climates evolve faster than those living in more temperate zones...."
Evolution Occurs Faster at the Equator | Live Science
It certainly refutes NJ's contention that high heat levels have a negative effect on evolutionary processes. In fact, their conclusion is just the opposite. I think you might find the article interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 05-15-2006 3:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Chiroptera, posted 05-15-2006 5:03 PM scoff has replied
 Message 42 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2006 5:08 PM scoff has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 52 (312091)
05-15-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by scoff
05-15-2006 4:58 PM


Oh, great!
As if we didn't have enough to worry about from Global Warming, we can now add the threat of armies of blood-thirsty mutants to the list!

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by scoff, posted 05-15-2006 4:58 PM scoff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by scoff, posted 05-15-2006 6:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 42 of 52 (312092)
05-15-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by scoff
05-15-2006 4:58 PM


Tropical Warmth
Hey scoff, we've got an open thread on that article here if you'd like to participate or make comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by scoff, posted 05-15-2006 4:58 PM scoff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by scoff, posted 05-15-2006 6:41 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
scoff
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 01-20-2006


Message 43 of 52 (312128)
05-15-2006 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Chiroptera
05-15-2006 5:03 PM


Re: Oh, great!
As if we didn't have enough to worry about from Global Warming, we can now add the threat of armies of blood-thirsty mutants to the list!
LOL! Excuse me while I wipe off my monitor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Chiroptera, posted 05-15-2006 5:03 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
scoff
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: 01-20-2006


Message 44 of 52 (312130)
05-15-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Quetzal
05-15-2006 5:08 PM


Re: Tropical Warmth
quote:
Hey scoff, we've got an open thread on that article here if you'd like to participate or make comments.
Thanks, Quetzal. I thought the article was fascinating, and it fit right into the discussion. I'd like to see others' takes on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Quetzal, posted 05-15-2006 5:08 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 52 (312399)
05-16-2006 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Chiroptera
05-15-2006 3:03 PM


Re: Gene transfer
I don't understand your continued confusion on this topic, despite that it has been explained to you several times by people who understand it.
And haven't I explained that there are several differences in the meaning of entropy? We have the classical approach of thermodynamics which deals with the dynamics of heat, heat transfer, and heat loss. This is what you and everyone else has been pointing out. You aren't wrong, you're just giving partial credit to such a vast and unavoidable proprty of physics. What you describe is exactly what 2LoT is, and 2LoT says that in closed systems where an exchange of energy could not be transfered, entropy is inevitability. Point taken. I've never contended with that. However, I've gone over that there are at least two other equivalences that hold fast to observation. We have entropy in statistical theory, which culminates the equivalence of entropy and disorder. We also have entropy in relation to the passing of information.
If you remember me pointing out Boltzmann's theory, this summarizes exactly what I'm talking about. This is what I've always been referring to and it makes no difference what kind of system you're in. Boltzmann argued that the second law was a consequence that distribution of information or energy would become increasingly disordered. And the aggregate of the final condition is of macroscopic uniformity and microscopic disorder, not a continual motion of more and more complexity. Boltzmann concluded that there are so many more possible disordered states than ordered ones. Therefore, a system, open or closed will always be found either in the state of maximum disorder or moving in that genral direction.
Essentially, what I'm arriving at, is, entropy affects everything, even in abstract principles. If you built a house 70 years ago and no one applies any maitenance on it (work, energy, force) it will always tend towards disorder. The same principle applies to us. Everyday of our lives, we become less and less perfect, less and less viable. To somehow think that just because we have the sun, the molecules that compose the house and us is somehow going to stay the same forever or increase is proposterous. In the same way, a car derrives its energy from fossil fuels that are in a finite amount. It takes alot of work for the car to move forward. Eventually that available energy is going to decrease, until new energy is introduced. This principle is undeniably serious. And if you say that has nothing to do with entropy, then someone should come up with a damn good name for this principle. Everything deteriorating with time is absolutely obvious that if its not called entropy, then it at least is deserving of a name. Its as blatantly obvious as "what goes up must come down.
And to further elucidate my point, I have used this site before. The reason I use it is because, one, it is factually correct, and two, the writers are neither creationists nor evolutionists. They are in my mind, unbiased individuals that have simply arrived at their conclusions based on observation. In other words, there is no hidden agenda that anyone could claim about creationists and evolutionists:
The rule that things never organize themselves is also upheld in our everyday experience. Without someone to fix it, a broken glass never mends. Without maintenance, a house deteriorates. Without management, a business fails. Without new software, a computer never acquires new capabilities. Never.
Charles Darwin understood this universal principle. It's common sense. That's why he once made a note to himself pertaining to evolution, "Never use the words higher or lower" (9). (However, the word "higher" in this forbidden sense appears half a dozen times in the first edition of Darwin's Origin of Species (10).)
Even today, if you assert that a human is more highly evolved than a flatworm or an amoeba, there are darwinists who'll want to fight about it. They take the position, apparently, that evolution has not necessarily shown a trend toward more highly organized forms of life, just different forms:
* All extant species are equally evolved. ” Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, 1995 (11)
* There is no progress in evolution. ” Stephen Jay Gould, 1995 (12)
* We all agree that there's no progress. ” Richard Dawkins, 1995 (13)
* The fallacy of progress ” John Maynard Smith and Ers Szathmáry, 1995 (14)
But this ignores the plain facts about life and evolution.
Life is Organization
Seen in retrospect, evolution as a whole doubtless had a general direction, from simple to complex, from dependence on to relative independence of the environment, to greater and greater autonomy of individuals, greater and greater development of sense organs and nervous systems conveying and processing information about the state of the organism's surroundings, and finally greater and greater consciousness. You can call this direction progress or by some other name. ” Theodosius Dobzhansky (15)
Progress, then, is a property of the evolution of life as a whole by almost any conceivable intuitive standard.... Let us not pretend to deny in our philosophy what we know in our hearts to be true. ” Edward O. Wilson (16)
Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.
Most darwinists just ignore this staggering problem. When confronted with it, they seek refuge in the confusion between the two kinds of entropy. Entropy [logical] has not decreased, they say, because the system is not closed. Energy such as sunlight is constantly supplied to the system. If you consider the larger system that includes the sun, entropy [thermodynamic] has increased, as required.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Entropy and Evolution. by Brig Klyce
Do you now understand why evolution is an apparent violation of the second law? Do understand my objection?
To add: I've got a pretty busy day ahead of me Quetzal, but when I get a chance I will respond to your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 05-15-2006 3:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 05-16-2006 10:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 47 by Chiroptera, posted 05-16-2006 10:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 48 by kuresu, posted 05-16-2006 4:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 05-16-2006 4:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024