Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: MWHICKZ1@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (Mike Hickerson)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 96 14:19:40 EDT
In article
myers@netaxs.com (Paul Myers) writes:
>Nope. If he had concrete physical and chemical evidence for his assertion,
>and if he was ONLY making claims about the biology, the last people I would
>talk to would be unqualified priests and philosophers. I wouldn't blithely
>accept his claims, though -- I would review the evidence with other
>biologists, chemists, geologists, etc., and develop a rational opinion
>based on the observed facts. Most priests do not have the expertise to
>evaluate biological theories, and as long as this is a theory about
>biology, I would think their uneducated opinions would be utterly
>worthless.
But my question included matters beyond biology (e.g. music, art, morality)
that scientists and laymen *are* trying to a biological basis to.If one
chooses to discuss a biological foundation for morality, and then defines
it as purely a biological theory (by using only biological evidence and
then claiming that morality is a biological phenomenon), then does one
have the right to exclude theologians and philosophers from the
discussion?It seems to me that your answer would be "yes," though I
obviously don't know you well enough to make that conclusion.
>claims. In this case, I would consult philosophers and ministers and
>professors in fields outside of the hard sciences, because they are the
>ones who think seriously about issues of morality and purpose.
If professors inside the "hard science" fields do not think seriously
about issues of morality and purpose, then I am terrified.
>
>This is where most scientists and creationists are at cross-purposes.
>Scientists are perfectly willing to acknowledge the ability of theologians
>to discuss matters of philosophy, or social issues; they are also _usually_
>willing to admit that their scientific training is of little use in such
>discussions. Faith and science are pretty distinct entities to scientists.
>Unfortunately, some creationists raise our hackles by _refusing_ to see
>that the complement is also often the case: ministers and philosophers
>are not qualified to discuss science, although they may be hot stuff
>in their own domains.
First,scientists *do* try to have an effect in philosophical and moral
discussions. Every year, another psychologist, geneticist, chemist, or
biologist claims to have found the "physical basis" for another
character trait -- anger, gluttony, anxiety, sadness, etc. -- and
instead of endorsing therapy, prayer, meditation, self-discipline,
religious or philosophical education, etc., as a way to deal with
problems of character or morality, they recommend drugs, prenatal
genetic therapy, chemical rebalancing as a cure. Isn't that stepping into
the realm of ministers and philosophers?
Furthermore, what goes as having a high quality of life in the USA?
Living as long as possible, regardless of how. In general, that is the
assumption underlying much of the news programs, medicalfindings, and
magazine articles in this country. Rather than allowing philosophy and
religion determine what living the "good life" entails, doctors attempt
to keep patients alive for even one additional hour rather than letting
them die in peace. If a person denies medical treatment, their mental
competence is called into question. Are these common example of scientists
working outside their domains?
>opinion of any and all scientific result. Hey, we're really struggling in
>the lab with this problem of replacement of embryonic cutaneous sensory
>structures with dorsal root ganglion arbors; who do you think would give
>us the best advice, our local rabbi or a baptist minister?
I would like to point out that your use of technical language in these
discussions counts as "doublespeak." Yes, I have no idea what you are
talking about. I have little background in biology, which I freely
admit, and, furthermore, you know I have a limited background in such
matters. What purpose does your jargon serve other than to emphasize
my ignorance of high-level biology, which I have already admitted?
Although I hope it's not true, your use of doublespeak may be a way
to discuss something that I can make no comment on. What are "embryonic
cutaneous sensory structures with doral root ganglion," and how are they
related to the debate?
But to get back to the question at hand, why can't rabbis, ministers,
and philosophers comment on science? They may not be able to critique
lab techniques and may need alot of explanation about basic and not-so-
basic science, but is science above religion? Can scientific
inquiry not even be informed by religion and philosophy? Are scientists
to be the only ones who have a say as to which direction scientific
research should move in? You apparently believe so. But where did
man's curiosity about the origins of the universe come from? Religion
and philosophy. The same goes for the probing into the nature of
life.
Oh, well.
Mike Hickerson
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: bcadle@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Brad J Cadle)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 19:09:07 GMT
In article <52bo0s$gv8@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
William H. Jefferys wrote:
>In article ,
>Richard Freeman wrote:
>#In ,
>#William H. Jefferys wrote:
>#
>#> Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>#>
>#> In article <51t9ag$s3j@news.cc.ucf.edu>, Morty <> wrote:
>#> #walter@physics7.berkeley.edu (Walter K. Stockwell) wrote:
>#> #
>#>
>#> My specific comment and question is this: It is a fact that entropy
>#> and order have nothing to do with each other. This is a consequence
>#> of the fact that gravitating bodies of gas have negative
>#> specific heats. In particular, the largest producers of entropy
>#> in the universe are stars, operating through a process of
>#> transforming gravitational energy into high-grade heat, which is
>#> then dumped uselessly into the 3 Kelvins background. (Almost
>#> uselessly, as the interception of a minute fraction of this by
>#> planets like the earth is what enables them---the Earth at least--
>#> to remain in a far-from equilibrium thermodynamic state). The
>#> creation of stars and galaxies from a uniform initial gas
>#> simultaneously creates higher degrees of order at the same time as
>#> it creates additional entropy.
>#>
>#> So, my question to you is as follows: Using any of your corrrect
>#> statements of the Second Law, prove that increasing entropy
>#> entails decreasing order. (Hint: You can't. I've just provided a
>#> counter-example).
>#>
>#
>#If your counter-example was star formation, then it isn't much of a
>#counterexample. First, nobody has ever seen it happen. Next, assuming
>#that it were to occur, even the formation of the star would represent an
>#increase in entropy (for it to even occur). Even in the process of
>#collapsing, the star releases tremendous amounts of heat into space, which
>#is an increase in disorder. While the matter is condensing, heat would be
>#released. In any case, nobody has ever seen it happen (at least not to my
>#knowledge). And I don't mean observing multiple stars in stages of
>#development - I mean one star going progressively through stages.
>
>The counterexample isn't star formation, and it isn't stellar
>evolution, it is quite simply the known physics of gravitating
>bodies, which is easily calculable from first principles.
>It can be PROVED that the second law in this case ENTAILS
>increasing order.
>
>Bill
>
>--
>Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
>E-mail: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
>Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
>Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Bill,
You still have not addressed, my reference that states
That Macroscopic Entropy IS related to Microscopic order. The reference
was my undergraduate physics text on Statistical Mechanics and Themal
Physics. I pointed that Macroscopic Entropy, that described by the
second law of thermodynamics, is related to microscocpic order as expressed
by
S = k times the natural log of Omega.
look at my previous post for definitions of k And Omega.
This relationship is a straight forward application of Statistical Mechanics.
I am suprised you weren't aware of it.
-Brad
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: bcadle@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Brad J Cadle)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 19:51:00 GMT
In article <52bosr$hnr@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
William H. Jefferys wrote:
>In article <5294sk$j8s@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>Brad J Cadle wrote:
>#In article ,
>#William H. Jefferys wrote:
>#>Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>#>
>#>In article <51t9ag$s3j@news.cc.ucf.edu>, Morty <> wrote:
>#>#walter@physics7.berkeley.edu (Walter K. Stockwell) wrote:
>#>#
>#>#>What does the existance of many species have to do with entropy?
>#>#>The laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the number of species or
>#>#>the types of life. Do you know what the laws of thermodynamics actually
>#>#>say beyond some vague statement like "things tend to revert to higher
>#>#>entropy . . ." How do you do physics with that?
>#>#
>#>#Yes, I am aware of their traditional textbook verbiage:
>#>#LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS:
>#>#1. The change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the heat
>#># transferred to the system minus the work done by the system.
>#>#2. It is impossible to construct a heat engine operating in a cycle
>#># that extracts heat from a reservoir and delivers an equal amount
>#># of work.
>#>#3. It is impossible to reach absolute zero in a finite number of
>#># steps.
>#>#
>#>#It should be noted that these are traditional textbook forms of the
>#>#laws used to illustrate applications. (The second, for instance is
>#>#also referred to as the "Kelvin-Planck statement", and you will find
>#>#that Carnot's and Clausius' restatements of the law are also
>#>#frequently used.
>#>
>#>Congratulations on being the first supporter of Creationism that
>#>I have seen in my 12 years of reading on the net to be able to
>#>provide even one (much less three) correct statements of the
>#>Second Law.
>#>
>#>#If you wish me to elaborate on all that these laws imply, and why they
>#>#are pertinent, I can do so in another post upon request...
>#>
>#>Yes, I really would like you to do so (see specific question below).
>#>
>#>#>And do you think living things really violate the second law? That when
>#>#>we eat food, extract energy from it, and excrete the waste, we are
>#>#>somehow pulling some cosmic trick, and violating thermodynamics?
>#>#
>#>#Thank you for bringing this up! I LOVE that topic, although you may
>#>#not care for my conclusions...
>#>#Yes, I think that certain living things violate this in a sense. More
>#>#specifically, THINKING things go against the tendency that this law
>#>#describes. I used an example of this in my previous post. I, for
>#>#instance can stack items (such as grains of salt in my previous
>#>#analogy) in an orderly manner. The ability to choose, and think seems
>#>#also to be the ability to oppose this entropic tendency. Sort of the
>#>#"equal and opposite force" to randomness if you will let me play
>#>#semantics with physical laws....
>#>
>#>My specific comment and question is this: It is a fact that entropy
>#>and order have nothing to do with each other. This is a consequence
>#>of the fact that gravitating bodies of gas have negative
>#>specific heats. In particular, the largest producers of entropy
>#>in the universe are stars, operating through a process of
>#>transforming gravitational energy into high-grade heat, which is
>#>then dumped uselessly into the 3 Kelvins background. (Almost
>#>uselessly, as the interception of a minute fraction of this by
>#>planets like the earth is what enables them---the Earth at least--
>#>to remain in a far-from equilibrium thermodynamic state). The
>#>creation of stars and galaxies from a uniform initial gas
>#>simultaneously creates higher degrees of order at the same time as
>#>it creates additional entropy.
>#>
>#>So, my question to you is as follows: Using any of your corrrect
>#>statements of the Second Law, prove that increasing entropy
>#>entails decreasing order. (Hint: You can't. I've just provided a
>#>counter-example).
>#>
>#>Bill
>#>--
>#>Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
>#>E-mail: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
>#>Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
>#>Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
>#
># Hi Bill, Strictly speaking you are correct in that the The second Law
>#of thermodynamics is a Macroscopic law describing heat. However, It can be
>#shown that one can relate microscopic propoerties of a system to the
>#general macroscopic state described by the second law. This is the area
>#of statistical Thermodynamics. Indeed one can express entropy as
>#
># S = k Times The natural log of Omega
>#
>#where S is Entropy, k is the a postive constant having the dimensions of energy
>#and Omega is the number of available states in the system being examined.
>#If one correctly defines the number of states in a system so that
>#the Entropy above has the same value as that described earlier, and
>#one interpretes the number of states as the Degree of Disorder in a system
>#than Entropy does provide a means of measuring order. My source for the
>#above argument comes from my undergraduate text
>#
>#"Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" by F. Reif
># 1965 (original publication date)
>#
>#To fully understand the relationship several chapters must be read, but
>#the relationship between Statistical Thermodynamics and the second law can
>#be found on pages 122-124.
>#
># So In summary you are correct that the Second law of Thermodynamics
>#n and of itself is a macroscopic statement, not dealing with the degree
>#of disorder, but it can be shown that the micrscopic order of the system
>#can be realted to it.
>#
># Incidently, in the example you gave regarding the formation of stars
>#and galaxies, you never defined what qualifies as a state of the system,
>#hence order was not defined. I am not sure how you can argue for or
>#against your proposition without defining all your terms. In addition
>#you did not show that your system was a closed system.
>#
># I guess this is part of the problem with the popular
>#conception of Thermodynamics in terms of order in that people don;t
>#realize that when the comparison is made to statistical mechanics
>#the term order must be specifically defined.
SOrry, About the post saying you hadn't asnwered my
question. I hadb't realized that you got to it already.
>
>Interpreting "order and disorder" in terms of the number of
>states rather begs the question, doesn't it? I
The number of states available is the order of a system as defined
by statistical physicists. I expressed my answer above in case you weren't
aware of this fact. Nonetheless, it is intuitive to see that this is the
case. Take a box with a large hydrogen atoms in it. Next lets look
at the momentum vectors describing the motions of the atoms. If all of the
atoms were bunched together in one corner moving with the same velocity
(speed and direction) , one state would describe the motion of all of the
atoms. In system where the atoms are moving in all sorts of different
directions, and speeds. the momentum vectors would be more randomly
distributed, and it requires a greater number of states to describe
the system. This is the increase in Entropy. So, as i have pointed
out to you, Entropy can be related to the degree of order in a system.
It is a simple matter of statistical mechanics. Now this does not mean
that every definition of order is related to the second law of thermodynamics
, but it does mean that your statement saying Order and Entropy are entirely
unrelated is simply wrong.
n any case,
>I'm specifically referring to the fact that gravity enforces
>a hierarchical structure on the distribution of matter in
>the universe. It makes matter "clumpy," and clumped matter
>is more ordered. Considered as a distribution of the matter
>itself, there are fewer states available to matter, given
>that it is clumped and hierarchically distributed, than are
>available to unclumped matter. (E.g., consider partitioning
>space into boxes: suppose all the matter is in one box of N;
>there are clearly fewer ways to do this than there are to
>distribute the same matter uniformly).
>
>This doesn't violate the second law because there is a net
>increase in entropy when you also consider the photons
>liberated when the gas heats under gravitational collapse.
Exactly, and one can show that the number of states outgoing
photons occupy is directly related to the Energy of the outgoing photons.
Indeed, I would suspect one could show that the number of states of the system
increased as a result of the gravitational collapse. The order of the
"matter" is less, but this is probably more than compensated by the disorder
in the outgoing radiation. So the problem is not that system is being more
ordered as a whole, but that you are only looking at the order of the
incomming matter, and not the disorder of the outgoing photons. By considering
the incomming material only, you effectively did not have a closed system.
>
>And, as I point out, it is the gravitational energy liberated
>by gravitional collapse, radiated into the universe, that
>is ultimately the source of the out-of-equilibrium state of
>the surfaces of the planets (at least, most of it).
>
>In actual fact, the universe isn't a thermodynamically
>closed system, because it is expanding. As a result, the
>_specific_ entropy of the universe (entropy per unit
>volume) is actually decreasing. As a result, the universe
>is actually getting further from thermodynamic equilibrium
>with time. See the article by David Layzer in
I think there is a problem with the statement above. The second
law does not say anything about Specific entropy. Just like the
conservation of mass/energy does not say anything about the density
of mass/Energy. Clearly one can increase the mass/energy density of
a system without changing the total mass/Energy of that system. Why then
does a decrease in the specific entropy of the universe
implies that it is further from thermodymanic equilibrium. I would suspect
that the total Entropy is still increasing.
>
> Entropy, information, and evolution : new perspectives on
> physical and biological evolution / edited by Bruce H.
> Weber, David J. Depew, and James D. Smith.
> Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c1988.
I will check out the book thanks.
-Brad
>
>Bill
>
>--
>Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
>E-mail: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
>Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
>Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Subject: Re: Survey Results reorganize sci.geo.* groups
From: Richard Adams
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:56:05 -0700
Gordon wrote:
>
> >> If so, has anyone asked the good Dr and/or
> >>his ISP to desist? Just wondering.
> >>
> >> Adrian
>
> It would probably not work. A note to dartmouth.edu concerning that
> other bs artist, A. Plutonium, returns a standardized form-type letter
> about protecting free speech.
Adams says: -----> ( X ) No moderation of existing groups <------
Many people don't mind the BS artists, and find them entertaining.
Some don't have time for nonsense and if they have and operate
a news reader with kill files, they might ignore them through that
electronic filtering mechanism. Others simply want a better division
of topics and respect for those divisions. No classification of
participant is "smarter" or "better" by these choices. We all have
the freedom to choose.
Group charters here were originally written to invite other related
topics when they include wording such as "but not limited to".
This gives a stamp of approval to the BS artists and other
discussions that are only remotely on topic.
In my previous proposal, I did not want to force the predictors
and theology discussions off the net. I provided a new group
for predictors. Predictors can use the scientific method and
have a justified place in sci. Theological discussions are often
crossposted to s.g.g. although there are already many appropriate
groups on the net where the posters are actually carrying on the
discussion so if we exclude them here via our charters, they
definitely already have many existing places to post on topic.
I suggested the division of topics to place discussions of
predicitions in their own group, giving them both recognition
and a place to discuss that. There is good reason to believe
that the predictors would benefit from this division. One
predictor even asked for help to form "his own group".
I started the task to rewrite group charters to clarify which
discussion were appropriate.
I suggested moderation as a means to enforce the charter, and
from that developed a more heated debate ...Ooooops!
Some people feel the recent heated debate will prevent the
continuation of a meaningful discussion of the issues. Its
possible for some, but for most of us we can take what we
learned now and move ahead with it. Why wait only to rehash
the same stuff again in a few months? Only those online
services that charge for connect time would benefit.
Although I put forth the suggestion of a robot to moderate the
groups with group voting, it would have caused more problems
than it cured for moderation of human discussion areas. I had
therefore (yesterday) withdrawn my support for that idea.
Of course it would be unfair to force anyone off the net. But
if we improve our charter to clarify which subjects are excluded
and also make certain there is another group where that subject
is on topic, we have a good argument both with the individual
and their ISP. The cooperation level of ISPs is just as uncertain
as those of their clients, but if our charter doesn't specifically
exclude the topic, we'll never get many ISPs on our side.
Reality is that if the charter says the topics, "are not limited
to those listed", and there are no specific exclusions, the ISP
will tend to side with their client, as we have seen.
After reconciling the discussion, moderation does not carry
a sufficient consensus to utilize it for the purpose of stopping
the off topic or other BS from the main discussion areas. Rewriting
group charters to clarify the excluded topics for the main discussion
groups and ensuring that excluded topics have a reasonable place to
post will give us some tools to achieve better focus without moderation.
A new moderated group for some discussions is still possible but the
idea is that this is a new group, not a replacement for or a controlled
version of the existing groups. There should be at least two moderators.
One with a wealth of knowledge on the topic, and the other to serve as a
balance against potential bias. Either one allowed to approve posts, and
no automatic posts by robot. I specifically exclude myself from that
position. This is not new, I never wanted to "moderate", I only offer
to control a robot. I've got a couple of moderators in mind that
have applied. Perhaps we can combine the needs for an area like this
for both s.g.e and s.g.g. into one moderated group, perhaps not, and
perhaps none at all! ANYONE else that wants to be moderator please
post or e-mail me.
(from my post yesterday)
A better applicable usage for a robot moderator would be to control
posts to an earthquake event data group, where official facilities
from the around the world could post information and events only,
with no other posts. Although there are facilites to download this
information, not everyone has access to these. A news group that had
a sole purpose of reporting events could augment other services that
did this such as ftp, and web sites, and give a place where people
could always know to look for event information, and know that the
robot moderator would keep the information official. In this case
we've turned the robot moderator into a very selective system where
it only accepts posts that can have passwords or other security
features.
(new)
Although an official facility could operate the news post robot,
I think it would be cleaner if a set of sites, including backups,
performed the data post approval function. They could also serve
to collect this information from existing sources and post it,
thereby relieving the existing official facilities from the need
to rewrite their software to post the data. A standard form
easily readable by both humand and machine would be used.
None of this is perfect, but it is a workable compromise.
All comments invited, e-mail or whatever. Should I write up
and submit a new proposal to the effect of what's written herein?
Richard
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: Doug Craigen
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 14:41:31 +0000
William H. Jefferys wrote:
>
> In article ,
> Richard Freeman wrote:
> #In ,
> #William H. Jefferys wrote:
> #
> #> Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
> #>
> #> In article <51t9ag$s3j@news.cc.ucf.edu>, Morty <> wrote:
> #> #walter@physics7.berkeley.edu (Walter K. Stockwell) wrote:
> #> #
> #>
> #> My specific comment and question is this: It is a fact that entropy
> #> and order have nothing to do with each other. This is a consequence
># etc etc etc
> The counterexample isn't star formation, and it isn't stellar
> evolution, it is quite simply the known physics of gravitating
> bodies, which is easily calculable from first principles.
> It can be PROVED that the second law in this case ENTAILS
> increasing order.
I would like to interject a couple of points into this ongoing discussion.
The common statement that entropy is disorder is a crude guide for the purpose
of student understanding, it is NOT a definition either of entropy or of order.
The common argument that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is
just plain misguided, being based on poor application of terminology. It is like
arguing that since God is love, then God exists because love exists.
Entropy is a number for any given closed system. For the second law to be
violated, this number must be lower than it was at some earlier time. For this to
happen, there must be processes (e.g. chemical reactions, light absorptions and
emmissions, ingestion, digestion ...) happening somewhere and sometime which decrease
the entropy. So, if someone believes that evolution violates the second law, their
challenge is to show which processes involved could not happen (i.e. because they are
the culprits). The entropy is the sum of the entropy of all the components of the
system. If there are no components which violate the second law, it is not violated.
I would recommend the page http://www.freenet.mb.ca/iphome/a/accc/evol.html for a
discussion of order/disorder/design/entropy and how they relate to this argument. This
page also references another page that deals with the all the individual processes in
more detail.
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Doug Craigen |
| |
| If you think Physics is no laughing matter, think again .... |
| http://cyberspc.mb.ca/~dcc/phys/humor.html |
|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 20:46:14 GMT
In article <52c2f4$111g@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
Brad J Cadle wrote:
#In article <52bosr$hnr@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
#William H. Jefferys wrote:
#>In article <5294sk$j8s@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
#>Brad J Cadle wrote:
#>#In article ,
#>#William H. Jefferys wrote:
[Beaucoup snippage, again]
#>#>My specific comment and question is this: It is a fact that entropy
#>#>and order have nothing to do with each other. This is a consequence
#>#>of the fact that gravitating bodies of gas have negative
#>#>specific heats. In particular, the largest producers of entropy
#>#>in the universe are stars, operating through a process of
#>#>transforming gravitational energy into high-grade heat, which is
#>#>then dumped uselessly into the 3 Kelvins background. (Almost
#>#>uselessly, as the interception of a minute fraction of this by
#>#>planets like the earth is what enables them---the Earth at least--
#>#>to remain in a far-from equilibrium thermodynamic state). The
#>#>creation of stars and galaxies from a uniform initial gas
#>#>simultaneously creates higher degrees of order at the same time as
#>#>it creates additional entropy.
#>#>
#>#>So, my question to you is as follows: Using any of your corrrect
#>#>statements of the Second Law, prove that increasing entropy
#>#>entails decreasing order. (Hint: You can't. I've just provided a
#>#>counter-example).
#>#
#># Hi Bill, Strictly speaking you are correct in that the The second Law
#>#of thermodynamics is a Macroscopic law describing heat. However, It can be
#>#shown that one can relate microscopic propoerties of a system to the
#>#general macroscopic state described by the second law. This is the area
#>#of statistical Thermodynamics. Indeed one can express entropy as
#>#
#># S = k Times The natural log of Omega
#>#
#>#where S is Entropy, k is the a postive constant having the dimensions of energy
#>#and Omega is the number of available states in the system being examined.
#>#If one correctly defines the number of states in a system so that
#>#the Entropy above has the same value as that described earlier, and
#>#one interpretes the number of states as the Degree of Disorder in a system
#>#than Entropy does provide a means of measuring order. My source for the
#>#above argument comes from my undergraduate text
#>#
#>#"Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" by F. Reif
#># 1965 (original publication date)
#>#
#>#To fully understand the relationship several chapters must be read, but
#>#the relationship between Statistical Thermodynamics and the second law can
#>#be found on pages 122-124.
#>#
#># So In summary you are correct that the Second law of Thermodynamics
#>#n and of itself is a macroscopic statement, not dealing with the degree
#>#of disorder, but it can be shown that the micrscopic order of the system
#>#can be realted to it.
#>#
#># Incidently, in the example you gave regarding the formation of stars
#>#and galaxies, you never defined what qualifies as a state of the system,
#>#hence order was not defined. I am not sure how you can argue for or
#>#against your proposition without defining all your terms. In addition
#>#you did not show that your system was a closed system.
#>#
#># I guess this is part of the problem with the popular
#>#conception of Thermodynamics in terms of order in that people don;t
#>#realize that when the comparison is made to statistical mechanics
#>#the term order must be specifically defined.
#
# SOrry, About the post saying you hadn't asnwered my
#question. I hadb't realized that you got to it already.
Noted. Let's keep it to one thread!
#>Interpreting "order and disorder" in terms of the number of
#>states rather begs the question, doesn't it? I
#
# The number of states available is the order of a system as defined
#by statistical physicists.
Fine. But that's not what most people, certainly not Creationists,
mean by 'order.' When interpreted in the presence of gravity,
this definition of 'order' produces systems that look more and
more "ordered"---structured, if you will, as the entropy increases.
As a definition in statistical mechanics, it's fine (and reduces
"entropy increase<-->increase in disorder" into a tautology), but
it completely fails to capture the essence of the meaning of "order"
to the lay person to which this argument is addressed. Keep this in
mind.
#I expressed my answer above in case you weren't
#aware of this fact. Nonetheless, it is intuitive to see that this is the
#case. Take a box with a large hydrogen atoms in it. Next lets look
#at the momentum vectors describing the motions of the atoms. If all of the
#atoms were bunched together in one corner moving with the same velocity
#(speed and direction) , one state would describe the motion of all of the
#atoms. In system where the atoms are moving in all sorts of different
#directions, and speeds. the momentum vectors would be more randomly
#distributed, and it requires a greater number of states to describe
#the system. This is the increase in Entropy.
Fine, but this isn't what happens when you take gravity into account.
In this case you _do_ get all the momentum and position vectors bunched
into a corner of the box (or rather, into various corners). The vectors
aren't randomly distributed at all. Yet this is a state of _higher_
entropy (when you consider the energy that has been radiated into the
Universal Sink) than if the gas were all over the place and the atoms
moving in all sorts of different directions and speeds.
#So, as i have pointed
#out to you, Entropy can be related to the degree of order in a system.
#It is a simple matter of statistical mechanics. Now this does not mean
#that every definition of order is related to the second law of thermodynamics
#, but it does mean that your statement saying Order and Entropy are entirely
#unrelated is simply wrong.
The Stat Mech books don't discuss entropy in the presence of
gravity, do they? Perhaps the definition isn't appropriate
in these cases. In any case, it isn't appropriate in the context
of discussing Creation vs. Evolution.
Take a look at B. Basu and D. Lynden-Bell, "A survey of entropy
in the universe," _Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical
Society_ (1990), v. 31, pp. 359-369 for more.
#n any case,
#>I'm specifically referring to the fact that gravity enforces
#>a hierarchical structure on the distribution of matter in
#>the universe. It makes matter "clumpy," and clumped matter
#>is more ordered. Considered as a distribution of the matter
#>itself, there are fewer states available to matter, given
#>that it is clumped and hierarchically distributed, than are
#>available to unclumped matter. (E.g., consider partitioning
#>space into boxes: suppose all the matter is in one box of N;
#>there are clearly fewer ways to do this than there are to
#>distribute the same matter uniformly).
#>
#>This doesn't violate the second law because there is a net
#>increase in entropy when you also consider the photons
#>liberated when the gas heats under gravitational collapse.
#
# Exactly, and one can show that the number of states outgoing
#photons occupy is directly related to the Energy of the outgoing photons.
#Indeed, I would suspect one could show that the number of states of the system
#increased as a result of the gravitational collapse. The order of the
#"matter" is less, but this is probably more than compensated by the disorder
. ^^^^greater, I think you meant
#in the outgoing radiation. So the problem is not that system is being more
#ordered as a whole, but that you are only looking at the order of the
#incomming matter, and not the disorder of the outgoing photons. By considering
#the incomming material only, you effectively did not have a closed system.
The whole point is that the order of the matter component is
constantly increasing as a consequence of the negative specific
heat of gravitationally bound entities. This extends not only
to those bodies themselves, but also provides the energy flow
on the surfaces of planets that keeps them far from equilibrium
and is necessary for life--life is a _consequence_ of this
energy/entropy flow. And, recall that the anti-Evolutionist
argument is that such ordering cannot happen "because of the
second law." It's false.
(The whole discussion arose because of the posting by an anti-evolutionist
of the old Creationist saw, "the second law prevents evolution." Read
and comment with this in mind.)
When I talk about 'order', I'm talking specifically about structure,
and far-from-equilibrium states (like living things). The Creationist
claim is that the second law precludes such things from arising.
My point is that structure, particularly hierarchical structure,
and far-from-equilibrium states, are _expected_ when gravity is taken
into account, because of the negative specific heat of gravitating
bodies. And this carries over to the biosphere, which is maintained
by these gravitating bodies getting hotter and dumping their heat
into the 3 Kelvins background.
#>And, as I point out, it is the gravitational energy liberated
#>by gravitional collapse, radiated into the universe, that
#>is ultimately the source of the out-of-equilibrium state of
#>the surfaces of the planets (at least, most of it).
#>
#>In actual fact, the universe isn't a thermodynamically
#>closed system, because it is expanding. As a result, the
#>_specific_ entropy of the universe (entropy per unit
#>volume) is actually decreasing. As a result, the universe
#>is actually getting further from thermodynamic equilibrium
#>with time. See the article by David Layzer in
#
# I think there is a problem with the statement above. The second
#law does not say anything about Specific entropy. Just like the
#conservation of mass/energy does not say anything about the density
#of mass/Energy. Clearly one can increase the mass/energy density of
#a system without changing the total mass/Energy of that system. Why then
#does a decrease in the specific entropy of the universe
#implies that it is further from thermodymanic equilibrium. I would suspect
#that the total Entropy is still increasing.
Yes, total entropy increases, but a consequence of the expansion
of the universe is that the temperature of the universal "sink" is
decreasing (thus, the universe as a whole is open). Think about the
consequences of this. Imagine you have a heat engine between a hot
and cold reservoir, and for some mysterious reason the cold reservoir
spontaneously gets colder and colder. That's what is happening! (There
is an extensive literature on what happens very late in the history of
the universe as a consequence of this fact).
Maybe it is all a matter of definition. In your first comment to
me, you noted that I hadn't given a definition of order, which is
correct. So I'm doing so now, but my definition differs from the
tautologous one you found in the textbooks _because_ I'm trying
to address the Creationist misuse of the second law, and the
notion of order that is appropriate for that discussion is different
from the definition in a stat mech text. I don't think we have any
disagreement on the thermodynamics, only in what it means to
ordinary people!
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
E-mail: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Subject: New Website for "Electronic Atlas Newsletter"
From: "Brian J. Matuschak"
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 20:39:55 GMT
A Website for the "Electronic Atlas Newsletter," a GIS user's publication,
is now accessible at http://www.electronic-atlas.com. At this site, users
can review a sample back issue, order a hard-copy sample or subscription.
Check it out!
--
Brian J. Matuschak, Principal, Electronic Atlas Enterprises,
Publisher, the "Electronic Atlas Newsletter" (Since 1990)
Home of the "Electronic Advantage": Consulting services
in GIS, computer graphics, databases (MS Access), technical
writing, and MS Office applications
P.O. Box 75394, Seattle, WA 98125-0394; Phone/Fax: (206) 525-7155
http://www.electronic-atlas.com brian@electronic-atlas.com
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: bcadle@hwr.arizona.edu (Brad Cadle)
Date: 25 Sep 1996 21:25:53 GMT
In article <52c2f4$111g@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
Brad J Cadle wrote:
>In article <52bosr$hnr@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
>William H. Jefferys wrote:
>>In article <5294sk$j8s@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>>Brad J Cadle wrote:
>>#In article ,
>>#William H. Jefferys wrote:
>>#>Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>>#>
>>#>In article <51t9ag$s3j@news.cc.ucf.edu>, Morty <> wrote:
>>#>#walter@physics7.berkeley.edu (Walter K. Stockwell) wrote:
>>#>#
>>#>#>What does the existance of many species have to do with entropy?
>>#>#>The laws of thermodynamics don't apply to the number of species or
>>#>#>the types of life. Do you know what the laws of thermodynamics actually
>>#>#>say beyond some vague statement like "things tend to revert to higher
>>#>#>entropy . . ." How do you do physics with that?
>>#>#
>>#>#Yes, I am aware of their traditional textbook verbiage:
>>#>#LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS:
>>#>#1. The change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the heat
>>#># transferred to the system minus the work done by the system.
>>#>#2. It is impossible to construct a heat engine operating in a cycle
>>#># that extracts heat from a reservoir and delivers an equal amount
>>#># of work.
>>#>#3. It is impossible to reach absolute zero in a finite number of
>>#># steps.
>>#>#
>>#>#It should be noted that these are traditional textbook forms of the
>>#>#laws used to illustrate applications. (The second, for instance is
>>#>#also referred to as the "Kelvin-Planck statement", and you will find
>>#>#that Carnot's and Clausius' restatements of the law are also
>>#>#frequently used.
>>#>
>>#>Congratulations on being the first supporter of Creationism that
>>#>I have seen in my 12 years of reading on the net to be able to
>>#>provide even one (much less three) correct statements of the
>>#>Second Law.
>>#>
>>#>#If you wish me to elaborate on all that these laws imply, and why they
>>#>#are pertinent, I can do so in another post upon request...
>>#>
>>#>Yes, I really would like you to do so (see specific question below).
>>#>
>>#>#>And do you think living things really violate the second law? That when
>>#>#>we eat food, extract energy from it, and excrete the waste, we are
>>#>#>somehow pulling some cosmic trick, and violating thermodynamics?
>>#>#
>>#>#Thank you for bringing this up! I LOVE that topic, although you may
>>#>#not care for my conclusions...
>>#>#Yes, I think that certain living things violate this in a sense. More
>>#>#specifically, THINKING things go against the tendency that this law
>>#>#describes. I used an example of this in my previous post. I, for
>>#>#instance can stack items (such as grains of salt in my previous
>>#>#analogy) in an orderly manner. The ability to choose, and think seems
>>#>#also to be the ability to oppose this entropic tendency. Sort of the
>>#>#"equal and opposite force" to randomness if you will let me play
>>#>#semantics with physical laws....
>>#>
>>#>My specific comment and question is this: It is a fact that entropy
>>#>and order have nothing to do with each other. This is a consequence
>>#>of the fact that gravitating bodies of gas have negative
>>#>specific heats. In particular, the largest producers of entropy
>>#>in the universe are stars, operating through a process of
>>#>transforming gravitational energy into high-grade heat, which is
>>#>then dumped uselessly into the 3 Kelvins background. (Almost
>>#>uselessly, as the interception of a minute fraction of this by
>>#>planets like the earth is what enables them---the Earth at least--
>>#>to remain in a far-from equilibrium thermodynamic state). The
>>#>creation of stars and galaxies from a uniform initial gas
>>#>simultaneously creates higher degrees of order at the same time as
>>#>it creates additional entropy.
>>#>
>>#>So, my question to you is as follows: Using any of your corrrect
>>#>statements of the Second Law, prove that increasing entropy
>>#>entails decreasing order. (Hint: You can't. I've just provided a
>>#>counter-example).
>>#>
>>#>Bill
>>#>--
>>#>Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
>>#>E-mail: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
>>#>Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
>>#>Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
>>#
>># Hi Bill, Strictly speaking you are correct in that the The second Law
>>#of thermodynamics is a Macroscopic law describing heat. However, It can be
>>#shown that one can relate microscopic propoerties of a system to the
>>#general macroscopic state described by the second law. This is the area
>>#of statistical Thermodynamics. Indeed one can express entropy as
>>#
>># S = k Times The natural log of Omega
>>#
>>#where S is Entropy, k is the a postive constant having the dimensions of energy
>>#and Omega is the number of available states in the system being examined.
>>#If one correctly defines the number of states in a system so that
>>#the Entropy above has the same value as that described earlier, and
>>#one interpretes the number of states as the Degree of Disorder in a system
>>#than Entropy does provide a means of measuring order. My source for the
>>#above argument comes from my undergraduate text
>>#
>>#"Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics" by F. Reif
>># 1965 (original publication date)
>>#
>>#To fully understand the relationship several chapters must be read, but
>>#the relationship between Statistical Thermodynamics and the second law can
>>#be found on pages 122-124.
>>#
>># So In summary you are correct that the Second law of Thermodynamics
>>#n and of itself is a macroscopic statement, not dealing with the degree
>>#of disorder, but it can be shown that the micrscopic order of the system
>>#can be realted to it.
>>#
>># Incidently, in the example you gave regarding the formation of stars
>>#and galaxies, you never defined what qualifies as a state of the system,
>>#hence order was not defined. I am not sure how you can argue for or
>>#against your proposition without defining all your terms. In addition
>>#you did not show that your system was a closed system.
>>#
>># I guess this is part of the problem with the popular
>>#conception of Thermodynamics in terms of order in that people don;t
>>#realize that when the comparison is made to statistical mechanics
>>#the term order must be specifically defined.
>
> SOrry, About the post saying you hadn't asnwered my
>question. I hadb't realized that you got to it already.
>
>
>>
>>Interpreting "order and disorder" in terms of the number of
>>states rather begs the question, doesn't it? I
>
> The number of states available is the order of a system as defined
>by statistical physicists. I expressed my answer above in case you weren't
>aware of this fact. Nonetheless, it is intuitive to see that this is the
>case. Take a box with a large hydrogen atoms in it. Next lets look
Thats a typo, it should be a large NUMBER of hydrogen atoms.
>at the momentum vectors describing the motions of the atoms. If all of the
>atoms were bunched together in one corner moving with the same velocity
>(speed and direction) , one state would describe the motion of all of the
>atoms. In system where the atoms are moving in all sorts of different
>directions, and speeds. the momentum vectors would be more randomly
>distributed, and it requires a greater number of states to describe
>the system. This is the increase in Entropy. So, as i have pointed
>out to you, Entropy can be related to the degree of order in a system.
>It is a simple matter of statistical mechanics. Now this does not mean
>that every definition of order is related to the second law of thermodynamics
>, but it does mean that your statement saying Order and Entropy are entirely
>unrelated is simply wrong.
>
>n any case,
>>I'm specifically referring to the fact that gravity enforces
>>a hierarchical structure on the distribution of matter in
>>the universe. It makes matter "clumpy," and clumped matter
>>is more ordered. Considered as a distribution of the matter
>>itself, there are fewer states available to matter, given
>>that it is clumped and hierarchically distributed, than are
>>available to unclumped matter. (E.g., consider partitioning
>>space into boxes: suppose all the matter is in one box of N;
>>there are clearly fewer ways to do this than there are to
>>distribute the same matter uniformly).
>>
>>This doesn't violate the second law because there is a net
>>increase in entropy when you also consider the photons
>>liberated when the gas heats under gravitational collapse.
>
> Exactly, and one can show that the number of states outgoing
>photons occupy is directly related to the Energy of the outgoing photons.
>Indeed, I would suspect one could show that the number of states of the system
>increased as a result of the gravitational collapse. The order of the
>"matter" is less, but this is probably more than compensated by the disorder
>in the outgoing radiation. So the problem is not that system is being more
>ordered as a whole, but that you are only looking at the order of the
>incomming matter, and not the disorder of the outgoing photons. By considering
>the incomming material only, you effectively did not have a closed system.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>And, as I point out, it is the gravitational energy liberated
>>by gravitional collapse, radiated into the universe, that
>>is ultimately the source of the out-of-equilibrium state of
>>the surfaces of the planets (at least, most of it).
>>
>>In actual fact, the universe isn't a thermodynamically
>>closed system, because it is expanding. As a result, the
>>_specific_ entropy of the universe (entropy per unit
>>volume) is actually decreasing. As a result, the universe
>>is actually getting further from thermodynamic equilibrium
>>with time. See the article by David Layzer in
>
> I think there is a problem with the statement above. The second
>law does not say anything about Specific entropy. Just like the
>conservation of mass/energy does not say anything about the density
>of mass/Energy. Clearly one can increase the mass/energy density of
>a system without changing the total mass/Energy of that system. Why then
>does a decrease in the specific entropy of the universe
>implies that it is further from thermodymanic equilibrium. I would suspect
>that the total Entropy is still increasing.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Entropy, information, and evolution : new perspectives on
>> physical and biological evolution / edited by Bruce H.
>> Weber, David J. Depew, and James D. Smith.
>> Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c1988.
>
> I will check out the book thanks.
>
> -Brad
> >
>>Bill
>>
>>--
>>Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
>>E-mail: bill@clyde.as.utexas.edu | URL: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu
>>Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
>>Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
>
>
--
Brad James Cadle
bcadle@hwr.arizona.edu
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~bcadle
(602)622-1665
Subject: Re: Breakup of Pangaea
From: buynoski@batnet.com (Matthew & Sally Buynoski)
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:22:13 -0700
In article <3247916C.48C@ix.netcom.com>, giuliano@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> It's surprising to me that all the land on Earth should
> be together as late as 250M years ago, and then it all
> of a sudden - if anything as slow as continental drift
> could be called sudden - started breaking up.
>
The continents have been continually moving for a much longer time than
250 million years. Pangaea was one occurence when most, if not all, of the
continental masses were attached to each other. The problem we have is that
subduction eats up the evidence of earlier separations of continents because
the older seafloor is recycled down into the mantle. There is evidence on the
continents, but as time goes by and collisions mount up, this gets either
"overwritten", eroded away, or just too confusing to be able to figure out from
the little evidence left.
> Did Pangaea exist for a "real long time" and then
> suddenly break up. If so, why didn't plate tectonics
> break it up sooner? If not, what happened?
See above.
>
> So, were the continents apart before Pangaea, and only
> through chance crashed together for a while before they
> broke up again?
Essentially, yes.
>
> It seems kind of weird that the continents should by
> chance come crashing together into Pangaea. The chances
> of that seem remote. On the other hand, the chances
> for Pangaea existing for a long time and then breaking
> up seem even more remote.
There is an interesting theory that large land masses contain the
seed of their own destruction, as it were, by acting as a thermal
insulator, causing thereby in or near their center the upper part
of the mantle to rise in temperature and start the spreading process.
Thereafter, the masses move apart until they either collide again, or
get so far away from the spreading center they created that other spreading
centers start to "win" and push them back. Perhaps the real geophysicists
reading this will be able to give a better explanation of the current state
of the theories.
>
> So, can anyone provide an explanation. If it would be
> too long for a news post, could you cite a reference
> that a moderately well informed person could follow?
>
There are several Scientific American books you can read on the subject, and
quite a few Sci. Am. articles over the years devoted to this. I'd start there
and read articles from the past 5 years on this general subject.
Subject: Re: Global Mining Boom
From: "Jerry L. Gubka"
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 22:02:33 -0600
Jeff Morrow wrote:
>
> "R.Spencer Ramshaw" <103214.545@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> >In Randol International's Mining Opportunity Bulletin, Fall 1996, there
> >is an article on "The Global Mining Boom...". This started a number of
> >questions in my mind:
>
> >1. Is mining really booming everywhere?
>
> I don't think so. I guess you would have to look closely at the
> global statistics for a number of years to see if the tonnages mined
> for any mineral increase or decrease for that period, and if there are
> any major "blips" that would indicate a rapid and sustained growth for
> a particular mineral. My feeling is (and I don't have any figures to
> back this up), that there is no real "boom" in mining in a global
> sense, but there are regional hotspots that generate a lot of news and
> activity, especially in exploration. Granted, some of this will
> result in new mines being brought on stream, but there are also a
> number of deposits that are nearing the end of their production life
> and an overall balance in total production may be likely.
>
> >2. How do you define a mining boom?
>
> I guess that a boom would require a rapid and sustained growth in the
> demand for a particular mineral. The last "boom" I can think of was
> in the uranium market where all of a sudden there was a demand based
> in part on the politics of the cold war and in part on the interest in
> non fossil fuel energy sources.
>
> >3. How long will it last?
>
> Until the supply matches the demand and new deposits are not being
> rapidly brought on line?
>
> >4. What are the signs of a dissipating boom?
>
> I suppose the time when the supply exceeds the demand could be thought
> of as one indicator, although overproduction and stockpiling may be
> difficult to assess in some cases. Perhaps times when economic
> deposits are not mined, or the search for new deposits falls off could
> be an indicator, but these could be related to a number of causes,
> including environmental and political pressures. Such pressures may
> often be significant in determining where the global investment goes
> and which countries are experiencing growth or decline at any time.
>
> Jeff
Yup ... problem is that "mining" is too general a term to say "mining is
booming". If you subdivide the term into "precious metals mining", "base
metals mining", "energy products mining", "industrial minerals mining",
and etc., you may be able to make some generalizations.
Live long, and prosper
Jerry L. Gubka
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
From: david ford
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:44:57 -0400
Posted and e-mailed.
Wesley R. Elsberry on 28 Aug 1996:
david ford:
> DF>If a book looks at a DNA sequence, and finds that a prediction the
> DF>theory makes concerning that sequence is incorrect, then yes, I guess
> DF>for an evolutionist it would be a pretty execrable book, worthy of the
> DF>most severe detestation possible. I can feel the anger rising in me
> DF>now. How dare that creationist Denton do such a dishonorable thing!
> DF>It's infuriating. Almost as infuriating as when creationists quote
> DF>America's foremost paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard U., to
> DF>support their position concerning the lack of transitional fossils in
> DF>the fossil record. Why can't those creationists get it in their heads
> DF>that a theory that is as strong as the theory of evolution cannot be
> DF>refuted, even by a fossil record devoid of transitional forms and DNA
> DF>sequences that don't match up to the theory's predictions? As Kipp M.
> DF>said in correctly arguing that the theory of evolution is falsifiable,
> DF>"One is always hard pressed to find counter-evidence for good theories."
>
> [...]
> Is the fossil record "devoid of transitional forms" as David Ford
> asserts? It looks like it is time for the Transitional Fossil
> Challenge to be set forth once again.
>
> Transitional Fossil Challenge
>
> Last Updated: 960828
>
> The Challenge:
>
> If SciCre-ists are "well-informed" enough to comment on
> evolution and evolutionary mechanism theories, why is it
> that so few seem to have even a passing familiarity with the
> biological evidence?
>
> Look at this reference:
>
> Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of
> selected Jurassic Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in
> Foraminifera (G.H.R. von Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam:
> Elsevier.
>
> Now, it is up to you to show why the fossil sequence
> described therein fails to show transitional fossils. After
> you outline your objections to this sequence, I have another
> 100 or so sequences showing fine grained transitions ready
> to go, one at a time, until either you demonstrate that none
> are actually transitional, or you give up your ludicrous
> claim.
>
> Consider yourself challenged.
>
> The bibliography comes from the examples in Tables 1 & 2 in
> Roger Cuffey's excellent paper, Paleontologic evidence and
> organic evolution, which can be found in Montagu's "Science
> and Creationism" or the Journal of the American Scientific
> Affiliation 24(4), just in case you want to get a jump-start
> on the rest of the entries.
>
> Please note that unfamiliarity with the reference above is a
> tacit failure of the claim of absence of transitional
> sequences -- the claim requires *complete* knowledge of
> fossil sequences, and unfamiliarity with any is prima facie
> evidence that the claimant doesn't have the basis for the
> claim.
>
> The Challenged:
>
> The people whose names appear below all made a claim or implication
> of absence of transitional sequences, and were served up with a
> version of the Transitional Sequence Challenge. This is a roster
> of who they were, when they were challenged, where they were, and
> how they responded to the challenge.
>
> Date Name Forum Response
>
> 940228 Bruce Willis CONTROV Disappeared
> 940309 Michael Funk CONTROV None
> 940510 Johnnie Odom CONTROV None
> 940714 Andrew Cummins Evolution "Prove all biologists accept it"
> 940717 Ras Mikael Enoch t.o. None
> 940718 Jim Pattison CONTROV "Can't find the reference"
> 940816 Charles Edward Evolution None
> 940917 Davey Jones Evolution None
> 941002 Lane P. Lester Evolution None
> 941030 John Shirey t.o. None
> 941129 Kevin Clark Evolution None
> 941208 Doug Wagner Evolution None
> 941214 Jim Loucks t.o. None
> 950312 Mark Russell misc.education.science None
> 950322 Ross Wolfle t.o. Implied recantation
> 950401 Scott Brian Allen t.o. None
> 950404 B. Schweig (?) t.o. "No time to do research"
> 950407 Lawrence Free Email "I only meant vertebrate transitions"
> 950514 Arthur Biele t.o. None
> 960408 Jahnu Das Email "I am really not qualified to discuss
> evolution on a technical level."
> 960506 David Markwordt Evolution None
> 960520 Ted Holden t.o. None
> 960828 David Ford t.o. Pending
>
> No response within a month causes the "Pending" to be changed to
> "None". A "None" response can be changed to something else if
> a response is eventually made.
Wesley E., some questions for you. You and I both agree that
microevolution, or horizontal change, occurs. However, we disagree about
the possibility of vertical change, or macroevolution, occurring. In the
case you refer to, what structure was observed to be coming into
existence. Is it an eye that is seen coming into existence, where before
there were none? Was it a leg that is seen coming into existence, where
before there were none? If your case is merely an instance of
microevolution occurring, I'm surprised that out of over 20 people queried
thus far, no one called your bluff.
Also, about these lagenidae, was there by any chance a really quick first
appearance of these things in the fossil record? Perhaps the case
parallels the Cambrian explosion-- all the basic forms appear, and then
after that we see extinctions occurring (plus some microevolution, or
horizontal change)?
Also, as far as I know, you still have not taken up this challenge:
Describe for me in a technical manner, or give me a journal reference
describing in a technical manner, how the biochemical pathway called
photosynthesis came into existence using mutations appearing in whatever.
Also, neither have you taken up this challenge: Genesis 1 makes very
specific predictions about what future study in the areas of cosmology,
paleontology, and geology would reveal. Show that the predicted order of
creation in Genesis 1 is incorrect, or that an inaccuracy is made in
description. Keep in mind that verse one is an overview/ summary of
what's coming up, and verse 2 sets the perspective of events as being
earthbound.
I'm letting you off the hook of presenting the information required to
determine if what you're describing really is an instance of
macroevolution:
a) how many samples
b) was geographic variation taken into account
c) how many features were looked at
d) what were the ages of the various samples looked at
e) were all features looked at
f) were all the available samples considered
g) what kind of changes occurred in the samples and when
h) these things are said to be intermediates between what and what
I respect your right to refuse to present supporting information that your
source does not contain. (In this regard, your silence speaks volumes.
You say that this article presents evidence of evolution, but when asked,
you decline to present that evidence. I have a sneaking suspicion that
you don't present the evidence because it's not there-- not all features
were looked at, or not all available samples were considered, etc.) In
sum, consider yourself challenged (again) to present a plausible scenario
describing-- not explaining-- _how_-- not why-- photosynthesis developed
through naturalistic processes, and also present a critique of the Genesis
creation account.
------------evolutionist quote of the year: "We are especially pleased
that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological
confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution')."-Gould, S. J.,
and Eldredge, N. 1977, "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of
evolution reconsidered," _Paleobiology_ 3:134.------------