Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:31:43 -0400 
From: William Henry Timmins <wt0b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Proving the existance of a deity (was Re: Mandatory negatives)
	<1992Aug14.005407.12901@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>

>|>dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
>|>[argument that evolution in incompatable with entropy deleted]
>|
>|This is totally fallacious.  Read Richard Dawkin's excellent book
>|"The Blind Watchmaker" for a full explanation of just what evolution
>|is, why it works, how it works.  It will explain in easy-to-read
>|detail exactly why the above comparison is silly.  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).
>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.

	As someone else pointed out, entropy only applies to the grand scale.
If entropy had to advance in EVERY system, the universe would grind to a
halt in a few seconds. In fact, there is a theory that life serves to
actually ACCELERATE entropy on Earth. An Earth with life advances
entropy much more than a lifeless planet would.
	In a way, all life (and especially Mankind!) is a major force of
entropy. We use up MUCH more energy than we use.

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

	We use the fact entropy only has to advance in the large scale for lots
of chemical processes and manufacturing. Most of our life relies on it.
There is no specific 'anti-entropy' force, it's all within the law of
entropy.

>>Where did your Creator come from?
>
>He's eternal and uncreated.  Let me anticipate your reply to this: absurd,
>right?  Well, I think that everyone believes something absurd about the
>universe:
>
>1. There is an eternal uncreated Creator from which all creation springs.
>2. The universe sprang from nothing out of nothing, and was designed by
>   no one -- everything about us is just coincidence and happenstance.
>3. One of the above, but there's no way to tell.
>
>These are how I would define theism, atheism, and agnosticism.  I would
>also submit that all three are incredible, absurd hypotheses.
>
>But one of them must be true.  And the nature of the human race is that
>each of us must come to grips with which one we believe in.  The evidence
>is in the world around us, and within our own souls and spirits to
>decide.  Which is the least absurd?  I believe the first one is, and my
>contributions to this (and related) thread were intended to indicate
>why.

	Well, anything this far out of our experience will seem absurd. I don't
actually find most theories about creation to be unbelievable... simply
because I wasn't there. :)
	I think the second is more likely, given what I've seen and know, but I
wouldn't be surprised to find that some big entity set up the situation.
Just, there's little evidence (other than what other people think is
true)

>>>[PS: if evolution works, where are all the transitional forms?]
>
>>You mean like Homo Sapiens Cro Magnon, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, Homo
>>Erectus, Homo Habilis, etc?
>
>No, I mean /transitional/ forms.  Consider, for a moment, the probability
>that a random mutation will not prove lethal (or sterilizing) before the
>animal in question has a chance to breed, and pass it on.  Call this
>probability `p'.  So the probability of 2 mutations not killing the animal
>before it can pass it on will be p*p, and the probability of n such mutations
>will be p^n.  Clearly, successful mutations will almost always be a single
>change.
>
>From this, one would suspect that the fossile record would show incremental
>change between species: p, p', p'', p''', p'''', p''''', etc.  Certainly
>there would be gaps, but one would certainly expect to find at least a few
>examples of animals identical but for one or two mutations.  These are what
>I mean by `transitional forms'.
>
>Are there examples of very-close-but-different species probability theory
>would seem to require of evolution?

	Well, your knowledge of evolution is a bit behind the times. You see,
evolution of species has to be treated statistically. What happens is
that as mutations occur, they mix into the species, remaining rare. The
bulk of the species is some statistical norm. One of the results of this
is punctuated equilibrium.
	Punctuated equilibrium means that under sudden environmental change, a
species will seem to mutate suddenly. In reality, the proportions of
subgroups within the species will shift, toward whatever is favored.
	During environmental stability, a species will seem not to change, or
only to change very slowly. In reality, variations propogate through the
species but remains rare until they are favored.

	This is shown by a number of examples.
1)	Fossil record shows these 'jumps' in evolution. Since only a few
fossils are made by a species, usually we only see the statistical norms.
2)	Species varying within decades. A certain type of moth is white,
camoflauged to hide on white tree trunks in England. As pollution
increased, the trees darkened. Soon, the moths were dark, too. Then,
pollution decreased. The trees lightened, and the moths became lighter
as well.
	How? Well, the dark genes were either rare or common. Simple, really.

-Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]
<B1 c+ f+ w g+ k+ s+ r- e+ p>