From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<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>
	<1992Aug26.190115.15019@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:45:47 GMT

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.

But you've still got the wrong answer, so no credit.  We cannot know if
the universe is an open or closed system since we can't leave it to make
the requisite measurements.  Even then, we are certainly justified in
treating it as closed since it is so large.  And as such tends to a net
increase in entropy.  Check up on a subject known as "irreversible
thermodyamics".  It treats processes that are not far from equilibrium.
There are clear demonstrations that local decreases in entropy are not
only consistent with classical thermo but are expected.

Your statement that evolution hypothesizes that organisms move from less
complexity to more is just pure wrong.  Darwinian theory is silent on
this point.  It's true that most observable cases do tend this way, but
that observation is in no way REQUIRED.  What evolution requires is that
mutations improve the survivability of organisms and thus are favored in
passing on their genetic information.  It is entirely reasonable that a
simplification could have high survival value.  It just doesn't happen
very often, but it can.

BTW, just because evolution takes place over long periods of time does
not mean or even imply that evolution is gradual.  Evolution can proceed
very quickly when the environmental pressures are right.  Stephan Jay
Gould has coined the cute phrase "punctuated equilibrium" for this
phenomenon.

Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1118 alt.rush-limbaugh:4263 alt.activism.d:3027