Second Law of Thermodynamics

Yeah, you're right, the piling on is bad since everyone wants to take a swing at the home run ball, but we have to remember that turnover means there's always a new audience. Still, you make a good point.Hey, all evolutionists, I'd like to request that you all refrain from further replies unless PianoPrincess asks for clarification.I think any further replies should come from IDists.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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:

When delta s=0 the point will be moot.

This is a common assertion of evolutionists today. Can anyone actually substantiate this however? It appears to me to be a bald assertion.For example, assuming for the moment that common descent (evolution) occurred, it would have to occur within the boundaries of very well-defined principles, such as "the laws" or rather principles of physics and chemistry. That alone is a tremendous amount of direction right there.Now, I am not sure how evos explain the appearance of DNA, but presumably if it could even evolve as they claim, it's evolution would be greatly affected and restricted by the properties of physical principles. So one would have to say whatever created/produced those physical principles at a minimum indirectly guided evolution and that these rules or properties give direction to evolution.But let's go a step further. Let's look at the order in the material world. Why are there principles that seem universal over a large span? That indicates order that is imposed or part of all of the known universe....hmmmm? From our human experience and scientific knowledge, where do such rules come from?Let's say we look at a computer program and it behaves a certain way. We know, hey, the rules are written into the program by an Intelligent Designer. Same with the physical universe. The universe has RULES. It appears to be GOVERNED.So it seems to me quite logical to think an intelligent cause is what created the order in the universe. Now, an intelligence that far-reaching,....probably could tell what would happen with evolution, dontcha think?So when the rules were put in place, and presuming evolution occurred, it is incorrect to claim that evolution has no direction. The direction was there all along, and if evolution is true, it is evidence of an Intelligent Designer, not of a random self-existing universe creating life forms all on it's own, as evos claim.

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

How so? Not disagreeing, just trying to understand.This message has been edited by randman, 01-24-2006 04:34 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...

What is meant is clearly 'directionless with respect to ...', where what it is with respect to is any of a variety of things such as genetic complexity, morphological complexity, genomic size, morphological size, intelligence etc... except in as far as those various factors impact on fitness. And the impact those factors have on fitness is going to change with the specific environment.So while in a highly specific environment some specific phenotype may be favoured, i.e. antibiotic resistance, there may be other environments where that specific phenotype is detrimental to fitness. So in general there is no direction to evolve antibiotic resistance, merely towards an overall increase in fitness with respect to the environment.In terms of mutation itself the majority of mutations are also neutral with respect to fitness. There may be systems for promoting varation around specific loci, but they are the exception rather than the rule.Can you tell us exactly what direction the principles of chemistry and physics are moving things towards in terms of life on Earth? The most obvious answer is eventual extinction but can you make any specifc short term predictions based on chemistry and physics?TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 24-Jan-2006 09:46 PM

Does anyone from the creationist/IDist side want to address the topic of the opening post, namely the second law of thermodynamics?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think you're misunderstanding the scope of the assertion. Evolutionists have never proposed that evolution doesn't occur according to the laws of physics; indeed, the laws of physics guarantee that evolution will occur."Directionless" is a potentially ambiguous term, one that the reader can interpret in many ways. You've specifically chosen to interpret the term in the most contentious way possible, so has to have something to argue with Brenna about. The legitimacy of that as a tool for constructive debate is something you might wish to think about.

you know full well what i meant and you chose to be difficult.the op suggested that evolution had an "upward" trend. instead, the principles of evolution are that things either survive or do not. evolution does not plan out that someday a goop will turn into something so great and wondrous as a sentient human capable of destroying itself and everything else. it just happened that way.

2LOT anyone? Anyone at all?I'll close this thread soon if it continues to draw only off-topic posts. The off-topic discussion is worthwhile, though, so someone might want to propose a thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Percy. I'd appreciate if you'd leave it overnight. I just fininshed reading the thread and am doing some thinking on it. I may or may not come up with anything. I copied and filed Modulous's excellent message 11 which gives us something to chew on. Thanks.Abe: Hopefully we can get this back on topic in the meantime.This message has been edited by AdminBuzsaw, 01-24-2006 08:06 PM

yeah um...I'm going to do some thought formulating before I post...lol that could take a while!! but I'll get around to posting some responsis.

OK I just took a look at Thermodynamics which AdminNWR cited. The OP is very similar to this thread. There are the others which AdminNWR cited as well, so I'm OK with closing this one if that's what should be done. If someone wishes to respond to anything here they could take it to the other thread as well couldn't they?