Talk:Evolution/Archive 19

message: Appending to the thread below, let me explain something.
Evolution and Theory of Evolution are principally NOT the same. If one speaks of evolution one does automatically refer to the state of the art in an scientific evolutionary context. If one speaks of the theory of evolution one rather means the theory of natural selection. These two are absolutely NOT the same. The one refers to darwin who borrowed more or less the idea, the crux if you so will,filling one book gradually another. Nowadays Evolution spans from physics especially quantum mechanics to quantum chemistry, medicine over virtually the whole biological field. In fact Richard Dawkins put it this way: When one speaks of biology nowadays one esentially speaks of evolutionary biology because biology only makes sense in an evolutionary context". Something that is correct.
:No.  The theory of evolution goes beyond natural selection.  True, in it's original conception by Darwin, the thoery was heavily focused on natural selection, but 150 years of work within biology, genetics, immunology, embryology have expended the thoery to such a degree that saying it is just a theory of natural selection is a gross oversimplification.  The biological theory of evolution has absolutly nothing to do with quantum mechanics (provide a source for this grand assertion).
There are several but few facts (=scientific concensus) in all of science which are general relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution,... If we speak of the modern models we do not usually use the term theory, unless due to contextual circumstances (e.g. chronology = history). In principal all of these theories once sprung from a few papers to tons of pages with accumulated experimentation that potentially verified those experiments ten, twentyfold or more. Once can then deduce, this really is how nature is and even if a new experiment doesn`t fit it doesn`t automatically nullifies the scientific fact but rather only modifies it.
Slicky 18:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A scientific theory can never become a fact.  Please understand the epistemological nature behind fact and theory.  Gould said it best (From this article): "...evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.... In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."--Roland Deschain 18:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Youre a braver man than I am, Roland, for signing with your name to what you just said. The object of a "theory" is to enduce debate, which in turn stimulates research and which in return bears fruit in the form of a "fact", creativity is more important that knowledge ("Einstein"). I believe that aptitude would go further in real life, this write fest has certainly "evolved" into a one hell of a discussion, Fact idiot 15:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The object of a "theory" is to enduce debate...."  This is the common misconception of confusing "theory" with "hypothesis" in the technical sense that scientists use them.  A hypothesis is a proposal that should induce debate, whereas theory refers to a broad interpretive framework.  See .  In science, "theory" corresponds to meanings 1, 3, or 5, whereas most people understand "theory" to correspond to meanings 2, 4, or 6.  [RD, notice how I make no allusions to creationists or the validity of evolution. ;-) ]  Gnixon 16:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well Roland i am glad about your contribution, given the FACT that i defined what i meant with scientific fact, and what its definition is, namely "facts (=scientific concensus)" i think you merely contributed in an additive fashion by reciting the definition of what scientific concensus means. I fail to see how you lectured me in any way other than expanding on what i summed up by by two words in a bracket. :)Slicky 09:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for this apparent dispute is that Slicky is not using English very precisely.  Yes, facts are constituted through scientific consensus (see Latour and Woolgar´s superb ethnography, Laboratory Life).  But this is an inadequate (necessary but insufficient) definition of "fact" as it is true of paradigms as well.  Moreover, Slicky muddied the waters by naming General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as facts.  they are not.  They are theories or paradigms which themselves depend on certain facts.  Roland was quite right to point out that facts and theories are different.  That both depend on scientific consensus does not make them the same, it only means they have (at least) one point of congruity.  I am one of many editors - not just Roland - who believe that this article must distinguish clearly between evolution as fact (e.g. measurable changes in the the descendents of hawthorne flies) versus evolution as theory (a set of concepts for understanding how and why these changes are occuring, and why they are important).  I see no grounds for arguing against this view unless one has poor command of the English language (or is a creationist). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of word theory, where inaproppriate (as i pointed out, that is in situations where a scientific concensus has been reached) is IMHO detrimental to the scientific world as a whole. It invites every guy from the street to make of his own theory about the involvent of god mixed in with some demented ideas about how the world works and proclaim this with a notion of festivity to the world. Quantum mechanics etc, are considered facts even though at some point of view (a scientific one that is - with the scientific dogma at heart) they an theory. But that is rather a curious result from the scientific dogma itself. I will refrain saying they are theories unless i am talking within a well educated group. Even though new experiments could contradict quantum theory it will not be replaced nor will the theory be proven wrong, albeit for a new theory which has yet to proove itself, such a sudden change in perspective regarding the validity of a theory can occur within weeks or even days. Science is not a totalitarian regime, it promotes an open process and thought fullness, i invite you do to whatever the heck you find fitting. You certainly are altering as little my reality as i can make an impact in yours. We both confide apparently in strict terminology, a prerequisite to good science - but be aware that such can be a hindrancewhen talking to the populace, especially when they associate with their everyday use of the word theory something that is on par with god and the scientists crazed notion of knowing virtually nothing except their own keen striving to get their mugshot in the press so the messages about new religious revelations is underminded - and be it so much as to not make the front page. Slicky 09:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually the post of yours SIrubenstein "Let us be precise. Darwin and the modern synthesis do not rule out the existence of a supernatural power (on this they are agnostic). They simply demonstrate that the existence of any supernatural force is unnecessary for and irrelevant to any understanding of the evolution of species. Let´s be specific and we may avoid misunderstandings." explains a lot. PS: ...meaning our attitude towards the world is too different as to be inclined in furthering the discussion. Call it ignorance or whatever you want.Slicky 09:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll give it a go for ya Benstein: (assuming you want me to decode what he claims you said as well) "Your post, which reads "Let us be precise. Darwin and the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory do not rule out the existance of any supernatural powers. (both Darwin and the modern synthesis are agnostic). They demonstrate that the existance of any supernatural power is not something one has to acknowladge in order to understand the evolution of various species. Let us be specific, and then we will not mis-understand each other" Explains a lot of things. Furthermore, our various perspectives on how the world works are too different from each other, and we would not be able to continue this discussion productively. Call this observation ignorance if you want." I think that's more or less the gist of it, Slicky seems to be quoting you from some post I can't see in this section, and then trying to demonstrate that due to your supposed exclusion of, well, God from your understanding of how evolution occured, that therefore your ideas on how the earth works are opposed to Slicky's a great deal. However, his assertion that this would make it difficult for you two to talk to each other remains to be proven. Homestarmy 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misconception

message: Quantum mechanics supports chemistry which supports biology.  David R. Ingham 07:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "absolutly nothing to do with quantum mechanics" 

message: would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  embryology 

message: There are two well written sections about this misunderstanding of theory and fact regarding evolution: Creationism versus evolution and in our article.  As both sections deal with the exact same concept, I think the two can be combined as each has some information the other doesn't.  If I don't get any strong objections, I'll get to it tomorrow.  The only caution to be taken is that the Creationism article deals with creationist's misunderstanding, whereas out article misunderstaning section is more towards the general person.--Roland Deschain 05:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think there is anything at all wrong with two articles having some identical content.  In fact, I think it is a good thing since many readers will go to one article but not the other.  I think repitition is only a serious problem within the same article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Rubenstein, no reason to merge the two sections as they are in different articles.JPotter 19:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah... no need to merge. Some ppl read one & not the other. And given the immense amount of trouble it saves us when pov ips come in (just point them to the section), I say it should stay. Mikker (...) 20:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Unlike a book, repetition in wikipedia is important.  It is seems unlikely that both articles will be read by the same reader. David D. (Talk) 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still harping on Theory vs. Fact ;) 

message: FUI... 60.48.200.124 made edits that were reverted first by Guettarda and then by me. I posted this on the ip's talk, who then responded on my talk with: 
"You wrote: I have reverted your edits on the evolution article, I don't think they are accurate. The section you are editing has emerged out of a long process of consensus formation, so please justify why you think the changes you want are justified on the aticle's talk page.
1. You haven't said why the changes are not 'accurate'.
2. To explain: I made the adjustment because I regarded the old text as biased. To cite 3 Jewish groups as regarding evolution as coherent with their belief may be 'true' but it is unbalanced. For example, I am aware of Orthodox Jews who are not in agreement with evolution. I would also regard it as unbalanced to just cite this viewpoint.
3. You didn't say why you regarded the reference to Hinduism as inaccurate.
4. I liked the link  as more balanced overall.
I'm not going to remake the changes or add anything on the talk page. Your choice about what you do about it."
I think the ip might have a point about including Hinduism, but we need to find a better source than the link he/she provided - altough it is from an "edu" domain, the article in question is mainly a collation of web sources; not exactly reputable stuff. Mikker (...) 09:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:60.48.200.124]]'s edits... 

message: I was a bit surprised to find the Founder effect as an example under gene flow. Usually it is considered as a form of drift, because it changes allele frequencies as a consequence of sampling error in the (initially) small population and because it is a loss of alleles from the local population, rather than gain of alleles as happens with allele/gene flow. Isn't it better under drift? Satyrium 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of 'Founder effect'

message: I added a section with transposons in the mutations section, and Micro RNA's  because of their growing interest. I can add examples and references if needed.GetAgrippa 19:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that micro RNAs are interesting, but their relevance to evolution is unclear, especially from the text, which says almost nothing about their direct relevance; in an overview article, it seems highly out of place to include this section. Graft 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Micro RNA should be mentioned, but the topic does not deserve its own section in the article.  I'll put it in the current research header (it basically serves as a repository for all those topics that should be included once the research has accumulated enough research and novel/stable theories.)--Roland Deschain 00:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mobile elements and Micro RNA's

message: It seems that the Hoyle's fallacy article stub should best fit within this article at the discussion of self-organization.  I did not check very far back in the talk archive (mea culpa) but it would seem that this sort of information/formal naming of the fallacy would best fit as a piece of this article and does not stand well (or well-sourced/backgrounded) on its own.  Discuss.  ju66l3r 06:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What interests me about the article on Hoyle's Fallacy is that it explains what the formulation is, and that it has been rebutted, but it doesn't relate what that rebuttal was.  So it's really not very helpful.  It just says "here's something someone said, which a lot of people have copied, which turned out to be wrong.  If you want to know why it's wrong, go read these books."  That's not how WP is supposed to be.  Kasreyn 08:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea to fix the Hoyle's fallacy article, bad idea to merge even more detail into this article which is rather long already. The TO article looks worth summarising. ..dave souza, talk 13:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with dave souza - Hoyle's fallacy could do with being expanded, but shouldn't be merged here because we're already waaaaay too long.  If it's not already referenced in this article, perhaps mention it, but we don't need to bring it all here (and certainly not as it needs expanding along the lines Kasreyn has identified).  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Hoyle's fallacy]] discussion 

message: The sentence about a consensus of the origin of Bacteria, Archae, Eukarya is not completely true. There does seem a consensus that whatever the Last Common Ancestor was that it was already fairly complex. I can provide references. I believe most feel the bacteria and Archae evolved through a process of gene loss. GetAgrippa 09:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair few people do suspect that, but there is little evidnce and I would not call it a consensus. Jefffire 09:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section

message: While I agree that deletions and insertions are associated with gene dysfunction as in Fragile X syndrome, Huntington’s, and Cystic fibrosis, CATCH-22 syndrome,  it also appears to serve positive effects in evolution. Gene insertions in the dog genome associate with the length of the dog snout, MHC polymorphisms and deletions and insertions, gene loss and deletions is significant in yeast evolution for example. 45% of the human genome is transposons I recollect. Here are a few other references beside what I just mentioned: Herrera RJ, Lowery RK, Alfonso A, McDonald JF, Luis JR. Ancient retroviral insertions among human populations. J Hum Genet. 2006;51(4):353-62. Hagemann S, Hammer SE. The implications of DNA transposons in the evolution of P elements in zebrafish (Danio rerio).Genomics. 2006 Jul 27; [Epub ahead of print]. Xie X, Kamal M, Lander ES. A family of conserved noncoding elements derived from an ancient transposable element.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Aug 1;103(31):11659-64. Mills RE, Bennett EA, Iskow RC, Luttig CT, Tsui C, Pittard WS, Devine SE. Recently mobilized transposons in the human and chimpanzee genomes.Am J Hum Genet. 2006 Apr;78(4):671-9. Epub 2006 Feb 2.It would seem that the addition I made to the end of sentence about insertions and deletions needs to be updated from the old reference and  introduce  transposon and significance of insertions and deletions in evolution. It is warranted to return some positive influence in 
evolution.GetAgrippa 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Insertions and Deletions statment in Mutations section

message: Removed this addition, as it is not possible to prove how many in the world believe this concept over others and, as it is not necessary to the article and may antagonise some readers, I removed it pending discussion. - Ballista 05:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same anon had added "concept of" in front of change. The two alterations together implied that evolution is a "concept" and "belief" rather than a set of observable facts which need explanation.  Which suits those opposed to the scientific explanation and in denial about the facts. Both additions have now been removed. ..dave souza, talk 06:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Where does the article say that? The bit I've read says " Judaism and Catholicism are notable as major faith traditions whose adherents generally see no conflict between evolutionary theory and religious belief.", and cites sources. The linked article is open to interpretation and is certainly not a definitive statement of what would be a major change in doctrine. It does however appear to be sadly misinformed about the extent to which ID is taught in US state schools. Doesn't appear to be a reliable source for a topic wich is more relevant to the Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church article than this one. ..dave souza, talk 18:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does a very poor job to relate what Benedict said during his trip.  Read a couple of the European articles that do not immediatly fall into evolution vs. creationism rut everytime science is mentioned and you'll see that Benedict talked mostly about science and religion (and not evolution and religion) and when he did mention evolution, he still professed the idea of theistic evolution and not creationism.--Roland Deschain 22:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "overwhelmingly believed" 

message: The link pointing to the Evolution (disambiguation) is dead.  I'm going to delete it.  I'd like to either create a disambiguation page or have someone else do it.  I'll start it in a few days if no one volunteers.
--Mooselover801 00:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean dead? I see it just fine. Evolution (disambiguation). Joelito (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Something weird is going on - if you click on "Edit this page" the whole page is there.  Guettarda 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bug, it's mentioned somewhere in the village pump (technical). The page is there for some users. Joelito (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Why is the Modern Synthesis of evolution treated as a separate article when it is fundamentally what evolution theory is all about at present? You can't separate out the modern synthesis from evolution theory. If so just change the title of this  article tp Darwinian evolution and change the whole article. The Modern evolution article is redundant to some of this article. GetAgrippa 18:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article, evolution, is about a biological process. Modern evolutionary synthesis is about the current most widely-accepted scientific theory which explains that process. The two overlap, but are distinct, just like evolution (again, a process) and evolutionary biology (a field of scientific research) are distinct. -Silence 18:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In a perfect world there'd be no need to divide up the article.  However, the term evolution (even when only considering the word as used in biology) has so many sides to it that putting them all into one page in Wikipedia would make for an unreadable article.  Right now this article is very large.  However, this page is pretty much about the Modern evolutionary synthesis: it states all the facts of evolution and then uses the theories from the synthesis to explain them.  It is pretty clear that this page is not solely about the facts of evolution, such a page would be useless to any general reader.  Rather, as Silence has said, evolution as fact and the theories that explain them overlap.  I would argue with GetAgrippa that they do so to such a degree that talking exclusively about just one is utterly useless.  What the editors of this article have to decide is how much of each side this article should have: how much facts about evolution and how many theories about the nature of these facts.  This article, rightly so, only picks the major facts of evolution and also shows the major theories of evolution.  The same applies to the Modern evolutionary synthesis article (it should be focused more on the theories within evolutionary biology).  As in all of science, everything is interdependent.  This article is the hub for the evolution field.  Everything else should flow from here.--Roland Deschain 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Synthesis Separate Article

message: As a biology student and lover of W. S. Gilbert, I'm aware of some rather good Victorian comments on the subject, e.g. "A lady fair of lineage high" from Princess Ida (final line: "But man, however well-behaved, / At best is only a monkey shaved!")  and my favourite, though much more obscure:
:That men were monkeys once—to that I bow;
:(looking at Lord Margate) I know one who's less man than monkey, now,
:That monkeys once were men, peers, statesmen, flunkies—
:That's rather hard on unoffending monkeys!
:::-La Viviandre, W. S. Gilbert
But are these relevant enough even for a little side box (See W. S. Gilbert for an example of these sideboxes), let alone in-line text? Adam Cuerden talk 13:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Quotations from leading biologists might be, but I don't see what informational value a quotation like the above would have for readers looking for information on the scientific process or theory of evolution. At best, such a quotation might be relevant enough to include in social effect of evolutionary theory, if given appropriate context and explanations (to avoid further propagating the exceedingly common misconception that evolution claims that "humans evolved from monkeys"). -Silence 14:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely wish Silence, especially since we didn't evolve from monkeys. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a complete aside, while it's true that we didn't evolve from extant monkeys, this statement always strikes me as pedantic.  We did evolve from something that, to the zoologically-untrained eye, almost certainly looked just like an extant primate.  The discomfort of people who dislike the idea that we evolved from a "monkey" is unlikely to be assuaged by the knowledge that they evolved from something that "looked like a monkey".  Factual accuracy is not really what this particular complaint against evolution is about.  Then again, it's arguable that none of the common complaints are!  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humans are an extant primate, so I'd be surprised if we didn't evolve from something that looks like an extant primate. While I agree that people's discomfort on an emotional or religious level would not likely be significantly affected by us pointing out that we have ancestors like proconsul rather than true monkey ancestors, that doesn't change the fact that it is just as incorrect to say "humans evolved from monkeys" as it is to say "horses evolved from rhinoceroses". To condone the former while pointing out the error in the latter would be hypocritical. Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, just as horses and rhinoceroses do, but it makes more sense to point to a dramatically more closely-related species groups, such as zebras for horses or chimpanzees for humans. In any case, we certainly shouldn't propagate such misconceptions, regardless of whether we go out of our way to correct them; an encyclopedia's job is to inform, not to misinform. Also, I don't think that the above quotation is specifically a "complaint against evolution"; read it more carefully. I was simply pointing out that we shouldn't accidentally propagate an exceedingly common misconception about the evolutionary lineage of humankind; whether or not people will "still be offended" when we've corrected their error is irrelevant for our encyclopedic purposes. -Silence 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll concur with Silence, but we should keep in mind that this is the main article, so it's appropriate to discuss all aspects of evolution, including its social consequences.  The general public is at least as interested in the social/psychological/philosophical implications as it is in the scientific details.  Gnixon 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct to some extent—this is the top-level article. But remember that the very top of evolution states "This article is about evolution in biology." Consequently, the social significance of evolution, though significant, is of secondary, not primary, importance. Furthermore, we don't have a daughter article called "Evolution in biology", where we could expand on the general topic of biological evolution; we do have exactly that kind of daughter article for "Evolution in society/culture", called Social effect of evolutionary theory. Consequently, simply as a matter of practicality, it makes a lot of sense to be dramatically more willing to include a quotation like the above in Social effect of evolutionary theory (where it is more specifically relevant to the topic) than in Evolution (which is already overstuffed with trivia and needs tightening up and summarizing, not further expansion—unless the expansion is truly of vital importance, which a funny joke by W.S. Gilbert is not). -Silence 16:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Evolution in biology", as opposed to, say, evolution of the solar system.  That doesn't mean the ramifications of evolutionary biology for society, religion, etc. don't belong in the top-level article, or even that they're secondary to laying out the theory in technical detail (this article would be fine if it never used the word "allele").  There should certainly also be a daughter article on technical aspects of the theory, which would go a long way towards tightening up the main article.  In any case, I definitely agree that this article needs to shrink much more than it needs to grow---we can do without the quote for now.  Gnixon 15:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea, but possibly not a good one

message: The article says "In fact, the flow of matter and energy through open systems allows self-organization enabling an increase in complexity without guidance or management. Examples include mineral crystals and snowflakes." No. Crystals are an example of self-organization occuring in a closed system and not violating the laws of thermodynamics. The following quote makes my point:
:We observe lots of cases in this world where the natural course is increasing order. Here are just a few examples:
* Crystals: the natural state of most solids is crystal - the atoms line up in orderly fashions. For most materials it takes much deliberate effort to make it non-crystalline.
* Marbles: try this... take a bag of marbles and randomly drop them into a small bowl. They come to rest in orderly layers and form hexagonal patterns. Very natural order arising out of disorder.
* Rain: When it rains we have water molecules distributed over a huge area of sky become more ordered by forming into tiny droplets, then become more ordered still by falling to the ground and gathering into relatively small volumes.
BUT: If I throw a stack of papers into the air it starts ordered and ends up disordered. This is true, and it may even be cited in a statistical mechanics class in order to introduce entropy. The reason is that this is an example of how you can use Laplace's principle of insufficient reason to analyze likely outcomes in dynamic situations, and we are then going to proceed to do something similar for entropy. In other words, this is an analogy to help us understand something microscopic and it is not to be taken literally. When we say "entropy is disorder" after making this analogy, we have defined a very specific type of disorder. To apply this definition of disorder to the world around us will be like measuring the "power of an argument" in Watts. Most cases of what we perceive as "disorder" has little if anything to do with entropy, and hence little to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  WAS 4.250 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point and an interesting article which also links to a useful page about Entropy, God and Evolution giving more detail. One question: sure you mean a Closed system? The article doesn't mention that, but does relate the 2lot to an Isolated system as the links here do. ...dave souza, talk 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Viz. every single hydrophobic-core protein, cell membrane, etc., in the body. Graft 22:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well at its heart, all organization is driven by entropy; the trick is getting the entropy to work for organization, which biological organisms are very good at doing. Titanium Dragon 03:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have just come across this point expanded in an online excerpt from Into the Cool which is a book on the concept that energy flows and in particular the 2LoT underlie and support evolution rather than being a difficulty for it. This looks like a worthwhile link as a reference for the paragraph, which presumably should have "open systems" changed to "isolated systems". ...dave souza, talk 09:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should stick to peer-reviewed journal articles and material published by well-respected scientists at major universities.  Gnixon 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crystals and entropy