Evolution Simplified

I think you'll find that the system doesn't require a "perpetual increase" in energy to maintain the system. Considering the amount of energy emitted by the sun (which is indeed increasing in entropy, thus making the equations balance nicely) that is simply "lost" or reflected away (in other words, not used), there is quite a bit of extra "room" thermodynamically-speaking available on Earth for any conceivable amount of life processes. In fact, this is one of the aspects of the biosphere that leads to altitude and latitude stratification and the increase in biodiversity in the tropics/subtropics as opposed to the higher latitudes (not the only factor, of course). Overall, however, for the purposes of life here, the net effect of thermodynamics is zero as long as the sun shines (it would be interesting to be around in a few billion years to see what the effect of reduced solar radiation would be on life - probably exactly what the creationists assert is supposedly happening now).

You may "believe" this, but you would be wrong. I concur that natural ecosystems, and even the biosphere as a whole, can in some ways be said to be degrading. However, this degradation has nothing to do with evolution or natural selection whether at the microscopic or macroscopic levels. Almost all of the degradation we see can be attributed to anthropogenic effects. Beyond those effects (and I'm not sure we can get past them in reality as it stands now), the biosphere is in a perpetual state of dynamic disequilibrium. The one constant in nature is change - i.e., evolution. Natural populations without anthropogenic effects (or at least minimal effects) have been observed to be in a continual state of flux due to changing biotic and abiotic factors. Strangely enough for your assertion here, this state of flux creates more opportunities than loss. Absent humans, the constant environmental change - the ever-changing selection pressures operating on variable populations - provides multiple "new" niches for portions of those populations to inhabit, ultimately increasing, not decreasing, biodiversity.To say that everything is going to "hell in a handbasket" is to completely misunderstand what is actually occurring in nature. Well, without humans to muck it up and short-circuit the natural processes, of course.edited to clarify really lousy grammar.This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-04-2006 11:32 AM

I am also enjoying your conversation with Chiro. I hope, when it becomes germane, that you will share with the rest of us the "actual evidence out in the field" that you feel trumps evolution. Since I spend the majority of my time literally in the field, and nothing I've seen so far seems contrary to evolution, I'm interested to see your "evidence".Someone pass the popcorn. This is turning out better than MI-III.

Hi NJ,I don't want to respond to this post in this thread - I think it would be way off-topic. I'm requesting admin help in putting together a new thread to address the details, so I hope you'll participate when I get it together. Hopefully see you there...

Hi NJ,I have a new thread posted and approved (thanks Nosey) which is a response to your message 46 in this thread. The link is Mutations made Easy. Although the opening post is a direct response to your message, I'd like that thread to discuss mutations (how they work, etc), as well as from where your disagreement arises. It could be very interesting. Hope you will be able to join in.

All of our ecological models are generalizations (in some cases, attempted generalizations) based on observations of actual populations. There's quite a good literature base on the subject, beginning with the first quantification attempt by MacArthur and Wilson back in the '70s. Many of the mathematical models are extremely useful from a practical standpoint, others are more theoretical.In terms of the discussion, things like carrying capacity, density analysis, species/area effect, extinction risk modeling, population viability analysis, etc, are all mathematical models that are particularly useful for practical conservation initiatives. The real danger is that people sometimes seem to forget that these are generalizations: the map is not the terrain. However, there's a lot of empirical support for each of them, and they are good tools if used carefully (i.e., with full understanding of their respective limitations). Basically, no one is saying that "this state of affairs must be", rather that we have developed tools to explain observations from the field that can be useful in a general context.Does that answer your question?