From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:37:02 GMT
	<SLEATOR.92Aug24092613@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Aug24.211221.4008@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Aug25.160114.12277@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
	<1992Aug25.223154.1867@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<1992Aug26.120101@cozy.Prime.COM> <1
Followup-To: alt.news-media
Distribution: na
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <21360@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> bblumenf@ems.cdc.com (Robert Blumenfeld) writes:

   In article <1992Aug26.190115.15019@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) writes:
   |> 
   |>                                    
   |> In article <1992Aug26.120101@cozy.Prime.COM> dwolff@cozy (David Wolff) writes:
   |> >In article <1992Aug25.223154.1867@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>,
   |> >tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) writes:
   |> >>                                      
   |> >> This is the root of the issue.  A person who rules out supernaturalistic
   |> >> origins must settle for evolution, because there is no other conceivable
   |> >> naturalistic solution.  Even when evolution violates fundamental
   |> >                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   |> >> naturalistic, verifiable laws such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 
   |> >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   |> >> (i.e. closed systems tend to move toward disorder, or randomness, or 
   |> >> unusable forms of energy, depending on application), it still must be
   |> >> accepted because the only alternative is a supernaturalistic 
   |> >> explanantion, no matter its scope.  The profound transition from
   |> >> evolution to creation is not scientific, but _philosophical_.
   |> >
   |> >Thank you for making your intellectual bankruptcy clear beyond
   |> >any possible misunderstanding.
   |> >
   |> >The Earth is not a closed system.  It has a thermonuclear fusion only
   |> >a few light-minutes away constantly spewing energy onto one side, and it
   |> >radiates toward a blackbody absorber (the universe) on the other side.
   |> >
   |> >Really, if you want to disguise your rampant fundie-ism, you should
   |> >make sure you never use this argument.
   |> >
   |> 
   |> Give me a little credit....  The conditions that supposedly produce evolutionary
   |> change are supposedly based in universal principles, and Dr. Who and others aside,
   |> I think the universe is a closed system.  To allow the part of evolution which 
   |> hypothesizes a move from less complex structures to more complex, you also must
   |> allow a massive local cessation of entropy.
   |> 

   I'm sorry, but I can't see why the Laws of Thermodynamics (i.e., 
   entropy) should apply to biology.

The laws of thermodynamics apply to all physical and chemical systems.
Check up on a thing called "Gibbs Free Energy".  The free energy change
in a reaction determines whether or not the reaction will proceed as
written.  If the free energy of the products is lower than the free
energy of the reactants the reaction will proceed as written.  If the
free energy of the reactants is the lower then the reverse reaction will
occur.  Note, I said nothing about when the reaction will occur, just
that it eventually will.
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d