From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Proving the existance of a deity (was Re: Mandatory negatives)
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:02:06 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug14.005407.12901@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
>I was replying to the following (in particular, the highlighted portion),
>which smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) wrote in message <4709@balrog.ctron.com>:

>|Evolution _is_ a natural force

>If evolution is to be regarded as a viable theory, it must explain the
>apparent contradiction with entropy (and other difficulties as well).

If you'd read the Dawkin's book, you'd understand.  There is no conflict
with entropy whatsoever, since entropy only applies to _closed_ systems.
Evolution happens because the system has a constant energy input, and this
energy, in one form or another, fuels the self-organization of complex
molecules.  You'll find the book an extremely easy read, and your arguments
against evolution are quite pointless and stupid until you can answer the
arguments made at some length in the book.  I don't care to summarize such
a complex subject in a few posts to usenet.  If you want to argue details,
learn the basics.  If you just want to spout about religion, take it to
soc.religion.

>In fact, it seems you must postulate some kind of force which causes
>systems to go from a chaotic state to more and more organized states
>(the exact opposite of entropy) for any `godless' orgin theory of the
>universe.

Read the book.

>So where is this `anti-entropy'?  Where are the experimental results
>that show it works?

They are presented at every Artificial Life seminar and convention in this
country.  The theory is the basis of genetic algorithms, the hottest new
software technology to come out.  The results, which may or may not revolution-
ize software, bear out evolution 100%.

>                     Where are the equasions that describe its operation?

Read "Genetic Algorithms", author I forget, for details about actual genetic
operators.  "The Blind Watchmaker" explains why the evolution in the main
works, "Genetic Algorithms" explains why the operators do.

>If there is truely such a mechanism in the universe, harnessing it would
>be the most incredible breakthrough science has ever seen.  There should
>be massive research efforts working to discover its operation, and how
>we could harness it for our own purposes...

There is.  We have.  We shall continue.

<religious mumbo-jumbo deleted for brevity>

>>>[PS: if evolution works, where are all the transitional forms?]

Evolution has no transitional forms in that sense.  Read the damn book, then
come back and argue, will you?

<pointless inoperative argument deleted>

>From this, one would suspect that the fossile record would show incremental
>change between species: p, p', p'', p''', p'''', p''''', etc.  Certainly

And Dawkins goes to great lengths to (a) point out those forms and (b) explain
why the fossil record cannot be trusted to provide a complete explanation.

>These are what I mean by `transitional forms'.

There are hundreds of known examples, several of which are detailed in the
book.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc