From: rob@watney.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: Proving the existance of a deity (was Re: Mandatory negatives)
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 04:07:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.005407.12901@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes: 
[in response to a response from me.]
>I was replying to the following
>|Evolution _is_ a natural force

If memory serves, that phrase was itself a response.  Anyhow, it doesn't
matter, as you clearly demonstrate below that you believe in the statement.

>If evolution is to be regarded as a viable theory, it must explain the
>apparent contradiction with entropy 

The keyword above is `apparent.'  

>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...

Forsooth.  You use this powerful secret anytime you read the netnews, turn on
a light or make any other use of electricity (to name just one example.)
Electricity is generated from heat, decreasing entropy in the process.  How do
does this miracle happen?  Simple: the conversion is not 100% efficient.  If
you track the _entire_ process, entropy is going up.

You yourself use the same process to stay alive btw.  So if you don't believe
in this, better roll over and meet your maker. ;->   <--- sorry, I don't have
                                                          horns in this font...

>>Where did your Creator come from?
>
>He's eternal and uncreated.  Let me anticipate your reply to this: absurd,
>right?  

Yup.

>Well, I think that everyone believes something absurd about the
>universe:  [...]
>These are how I would define theism, atheism, and agnosticism.  I would
>also submit that all three are incredible, absurd hypotheses.

Sure.  That's the point.  You claimed to have evidence for your absurd
hypothesis.  I called your bluff, and I haven't seen any cards yet.

>>>[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?
>[faulty evolutionism deleted]
>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'.

Hm.  Two points.  First, you'd need a detailed medical exam to distinguish a
living Cro-Magnon from a modern human.  Even with a Neanderthal you'd better
know what you were looking for.  So these are indeed very close relatives of
ours.  Second, `different by one or two mutations' from _what_?  African
blacks?  American Indians?  Caucasians?  For that matter, even close relatives
like my sister and I easily have different enough genes to find `one or two'
point-differences without much trouble.  The gene-pool of any healthy species
is large, not a discrete spot on the genetic landscape.  All the indications
are that the Cro-magnons would have been able to interbreed with us, which
makes us the same species by standard biology.  Their genepool is a blot
that's shifted slightly with respect to ours, but still mostly overlaps it.
This is how evolution works.

SR
---
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc