From: henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley)
Subject: Re: Mr. Henley continues to ignore the issue of force
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:15:47 GMT

In article <92403@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>In article <henley.920730115337@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> henley@eng.auburn.edu (James Paul Henley) writes:
>>In article <92333@bu.edu> colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) writes:
>
>>Allele frequency equilibrium would indeed mean no evolution.  But that would
>>only be true if there were no driving forces.  What are the driving forces?
>>How about environmental stresses?  That's what I would guess.
>
>	No, the driving "forces" are mutation, recombination, gene
>flow, genetic drift and selection. None of these are forces in the
>sense of having the ability to do work. Had you read my FAQ file,
>you might have had a grasp of the basics of the theory you are
>trying to criticise. Also, do you think anyone here is so stupid
>not to notice that you are trying to slide this whole argument by
>on the grounds of a sliding definition of "force".
>

As a matter of fact, I am relying on the Biologists to give me the 
definitions, since I am not a Biologist.  You just did.  Thank You.

Now as far as work goes, work is a change.  Evolution is a change.
Evolution is work.  I am merely trying to understand it by the laws
of science that I apply to processes, namely the laws of thermodynamics.

>>Allele frequency steady state, however...
>>
>>If you don't know the difference, then you need to learn some thermo.
>
>	I know the difference between a steady state and an equilibrium.
>One of my undergraduate majors was chemistry. If you think a change in
>allele frequencies is a thermodynamic process -- _you_ need to learn

Ah, but every process on earth is due to thermodynamics.  Even thought
processes.  How do you think the neurons fire?

>some thermo. How long are you going to ignore this criticism? Are you
>going to continue to maintain that "forces" change the gene pool with-

But, but, I thought you just said that the driving forces were mutation,
recombination, gene flow, genetic drift, and selection.  Do they or
don't they change the gene pool?
 
>out providing support for this contention? Your whole argument is
>riding on that point and you don't seem to understand the problem.
>In addition, changes in allele frequencies have been observed. Its
>kind of stupid to say "theoretically, this can't happen", when
>something has been directly observed.

Whoah there.  When did I *ever* say that changes in allele frequency can't
happen?  In fact, if you will recall, when I first joined the newsgroup,
I said that we *can't* argue over alleles.  Why did I say that if I am
planning on arguing over alleles?

>Of course, you haven't got around to explicitly saying the laws of 
>thermo prevent evolution -- but if that isn't your thesis, what in
>the hell is your point?

My point is to apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to Evolutionary Processes.
What are you so afraid of?

>>James P. Henley Jr.
>
>Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
>"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
>resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
> 	--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
>

James P. Henley Jr.
Chemical Engineering Dept.
Auburn University