Replies to post #3487 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[extelecom]

mlsoft, I might add that given mans interference in any human evolutionary process has probably stagnated it at this time.

et

[Math Junkie]

"Such a theory stands the 2nd law of thermodynamics on its head."

Hogwash. I disproved that, and you haven't proven otherwise.

[royg1927]

Mlsoft, thanks for your reply,

Stephen Jay Gould, look at Google, perhaps starting with "---Gould dies at 60" for a quick bio and leads to his extensive writings. You have seen him on TeeVee and will recognize his photo. Died at 60 last May.

300 consecutive monthly essays published in Natural History, as well as several books, most of which are in my library. Unquestionably learned, although not without challenges by some peers, and I buy much of his theory and conclusions regarding evolution. A good read, except that he rarely uses 10 words when 100 will do as well. {g}

With Niles Eldridge, co-originator of the notion of "punctuated equilibrium" (ca 1970s) regarding evolution.

Alexander Agassive Professor of Zoology at Harvard. A "star in Harvard's firmament".

A basic conclusion of his is that the arrival of human intelligence was a "glorious accident" and that if the tape of evolution were rewound and run again, the chance of intelligence arising again is vanishingly small. Why? The notion of contingincy, as in varying original canditions, i.e. when the butterfly flaps its wings originally, the eventually resulting hurricane bears the unique imprint. He cites the astroid (comet?) hit in Mexico 65mil years ago, which is now widely thought to have the smoked the dinosaurs, as being a chance factor in allowing the emergence of mamallanian precursors of humans. Another cited "fact" (apparently from paleontologal evidence) is that the only remaining species of homo (us) is but one of many branches of a bush, all others having gone extinct. Why? Perhaps (only one factor of many) the "accident" of intelligence and speech provided survival advantages for a very small population, perhaps only a few thousands (from mitrochondrial dna extrapolations).

My guess is that you will be interested to inquire as time permits.

Perhaps "-- universally accepted evolutionary map-- " as you are aware of it may need to be reconsidered. (And which, not incidentally, will allow 2nd thermo to live {g}). There are other substantial names besides Gould, although I have not read all of them nearly as exhaustively. They appear in the bibliograpg of his books (see the first Google entry).

Saving the best for last, he has extensive writings about baseball (as has George Will, of "Men at Work"). If on a cold winter evening the mind tires (or grows numb) from his science, a switch to the national pastime might relax.

I go to prepare for the battle tomorrow.

Roy

P.S. Thanks for your posts, especially, as Zeev says, on the dark side.

[webster groves]

<<Such a theory stands the 2nd law of thermodynamics on its head.>>

This statement is completely false.

It would only be true if the life form were a closed system,
with energy neither leaving nor entering. But life does not exist as a closed system. Energy input is constantly needed.

OK let's extend our boundaries further, and include a food source. As the life-form grows, it's order increases and hence it's entropy decreases. Aha says the scheptic, a violation of the 2nd Law ! But no, the entropy of the food source increases even more as it is consumed. Together, food plus life source has an increasing entropy. But you say food grows too, so it's entropy is decreasing. That is true while the food is growing, but it's energy for growth comes from another source - the Sun. As the Sun ages and releases energy, it's entropy (Sun + radiant energy) goes up. For the Earth-Sun system together, entropy increases as demanded by the 2nd law.

This line of argument can logically be extended to nucleosynthesis of heavy elements in the Sun, and the release of radiant energy, to the formation of the solar system, to the ensemble of the Galaxy, to the expansion and cooling of the universe. Given an adequately large system, entropy always increases.

When you die, the entropy of your body as a closed system will immediately start to increase. However, the entropy of the organisms promoting your decay will decrease, athough not as much. Life may go on, but entropy always goes up.

This is what my high school physics teacher once told me, and I remember every word to this day (g).

-wg