Creation VS Evolution Survey Now Complete
david ford
Michael Noreen on Sun, 11 AUG 1996:
Thusly david ford Spake unto :
>:> If a homeobox mutation leads to a feature being doubled - say an
>:> extra pair of legs - then evolution's got something to work with.
>:> This particular organism is likely to suffer badly from having to
>:> drag around an extra pair of legs, but perhaps there isn't any real
>:> selection against this aberration - and the trait is passed on. The
>:> organism already has enough legs, so this new pair of appendages
>:> can be adapted to some other function - say as wings or chewing
>:> instruments. The beauty of it is that this repeated organ system
>:> comes ready-to-adapt; it comes equipped with all the genes needed
>:> for its operation. A complex organ, ready to be adapted for
>:> whatever purpose.
>:> The whole issue of how a new complex organ can arise is solved.
>> "So this new pair of appendages can be adapted to some other function
>> - say as wings or chewing instruments." Would the legs perhaps be
>> used by the organism, and when the legs had been used enough in a
>> particular manner, they eventually get better adapted to, i.e., are
>> shaped into, doing better what they do-- is it a use/disuse
>> development of the legs? "The whole issue of how a new complex organ
>> can arise is solved." Are you proposing the same for the development
>> of internal organs, as when two livers are produced, and one develops
>> through use-disuse into a pancreas?
> That would be Lamarckism, and I do not believe in it. No, the thing is
> this: Assume the organism, for whatever reason, through a genetic
> mutation got to have two livers. That is one liver more than the
> organism actually need. At the same time the selection against having
> an extra liver is probably not extreme; it is conceivable that the
> organism could survive and pass on its genes. As generations
> progressed there would be mutations in the genes coding for these two
> livers, but as long as at least one set of genes continued to function,
> the organism is OK, and if, at any time, a mutation causes the
> duplicate liver to take on a role which is slightly different from the
> original there will be no selection against it. If this slightly
> different function proved beneficial, then the trait would spread, and
> further specialization would mean the arising of a wholly new organ.
Do you really propose that it is possible using this method to make a
duplicate liver into say a needed kidney over a long period of time by
natural selection collecting beneficial errors in DNA?
> Now, this scenario isn't very likely. Almost all present examples of
> animals which've had organs which are no longer used (ie the appendix
> in humans or the eyes in cave-dwelling organisms) shows that the organ
> quickly loses its function and is lost (the genes coding for the organ
> is released from the stabilizing influence of natural selection, and
> mutates into random noise). It is not however impossible to imagine
> that 'redundant' organs could be specialized to new tasks.
I will agree that it is not impossible to imagine this scenario. Most
anything can conceivably be done in the imagination. A person taking LSD,
for example, may jump off a building as a result of imagining that he is
able to fly.
> All it
> takes is that one mutation in the organ causes it to be ever so
> slightly useful for another task than it was originally used.
A lot more than one mutation would be needed to make a duplicate liver into
that needed kidney.
> However, as I also stated this isn't by any means the normal state of
> affairs in evolution, but a theory of how radically new complex organs
> can arise.
The theory of evolution certainly has spawned a variety of theories for how
all these miraculous miracles are to occur. Eyes evolving independently
40+ times, livers becoming kidneys, duplicate kidneys becoming pancreases,
complex biochemical pathways evolving where the pathway cannot work until
the myriad components are perfectly in place, reptiles hatching out of
chicken eggs, bears becoming whales, bears becoming humans. It's enough to
make one dizzy.
>:> The bithorax mutation, mentioned above, led to the formation of a
>:> duplicate thorax, complete with wings. That is the poor animal had
>:> four wings and four halteres, instead of two of both. That's two new
>:> wings and two new halteres, a sum of four new limbs for evolution to
>:> work on. I do not know how many (and which) internal organs were
>:> duplicated, but I can look it up for you if you're interested.
>> Why do you say poor? I should think it would like to have an extra
>> set of wings and halteres, so that it can adapt them to new uses.
> The beast can't fly. The wings function, but the fly can't fly - they
> get in the way of each other. Also, as was pointed out to me, the
> halteres are not doubled; they are converted into wings - and since
> flies use their halteres as gyros, these mutants can't keep track of
> direction and speed in the air.
This could be lethal, being unable to "keep track of direction and speed in
the air" and having wings that "get in the way of each other." I'd say
that natural selection will kill the poor thing: in the wild, this mutant
will not survive long. Fortunately for the theory of evolution, the
production of things that get in the way and disorient an organism, can, in
the long run, be converted into entirely new organs and limbs through the
process of natural selection. Or was that the mechanism that was going to
kill the thing?
> It may be able to adapt those new organs to completely new uses, but
> first it must survive while having them. As I said HOX mutations, as
> all mutations with drastic effects, usually lower survival radically.
A _minor_ difficulty.
> Theoretically, given relaxed selection, the fly over thousands of
> generations could learn how to fly with four wings - many other
> insects do (ie dragonflies & butterflies). That would be real,
> creationist sense, macromutation, since all flies and mosquitos have
> only two wings.
david ford
Nicholas Plummer on 11 AUG 1996:
david ford wrote:
[snip]
>> club mosses, ferns, liverworts, cyads, horsetails, ground pines
>> (over 286 mya)
> Ferns are an extremely diverse group. Are the modern species all seen in
> the fossil record?
I don't know exactly. Peter Ward says on pg. 160 of his _On Methuselah's
Trail_ (1992) that "The fern species that first appeared were gradually
replaced in the late Carboniferous by more advanced species, the first
'true' ferns, forms that are the direct ancestors of all modern fern
species.... More than 12,000 species of ferns are still alive..." Based
on "direct ancestors" and "still alive," I'd think yes.
>> a type of land snail (1 mya)
> 1 mya?????? That's all it takes to be a "living fossil?"
>> Lepidosiren
> That's a lungfish, as you should know. You're repeating yourself.
If I'd included the scientific names where I could have, I would have known.
This specific name was mentioned by Darwin.
>> infusoria
> This is usually used as a generic term for any single-cell or microscopic
> critter (protists, nematodes, crustacean larvae, etc.). Did you have
> something specific in mind?
Again, this came from Darwin, so no, I didn't have anything specific in mind.
> Once again, the problem boils down to your failure to give a precise
> definition for your term, "vertical change." Does it correspond to
> speciation? Change at the genus level? A higher taxonomic category?
Vertical change: a major structural change, as with the appearance of a new
organ or the replacement of a human hand with a bear paw.
> You have given us a broad melange of "living fossil" groups. One what
> basis do you conclude that the differences within all those groups is due
> merely to "horizontal change?"
On the basis that they were called living fossils. However, since the
term can be used rather broadly, and because I've misinterpreted remarks
in saying that some things were living fossils as has been pointed out,
more specific information on the specimens will probably be needed to see
if there are major structural differences between the living and
fossilized specimens.
david ford
James G. Acker on 9 AUG 1996:
david ford wrote:
James G. Acker on 7 AUG 1996:
david ford wrote:
DF
>:>: Does only one sex of the specimens have the supposed vestigial
>:>: limbs?
> JA
>:> Gender is not mentioned. There is no indication that it
>:> could be ascertained (perhaps it could be, if the whales had a
>:> penis bone like a mink). They do say "Characteristics related to
>:> reproduction are often dimorphic in mammals, and dimorphism in a
>:> larger sample of limb elements would support an interpretation
>:> of hind limb function proposed here (lack of dimorphism would
>:> not refute it)."
> DF
>: If it was determined that only say the males had the vestigial legs,
>: would they still be called vestigial legs?
> JA
> I can't say, authoritatively. I'd expect that they would.
This makes no sense at all. You call the vestigial limbs smaller
versions of terrestrial legs. It would make no sense if only the males
and not the females had these smaller versions of terrestrial legs, since
both the male and female terrestrial progenitors had legs. Now you
could, if you really wanted to, say that for some strange reason, the
terrestrial legs of the females disappeared much more quickly than the
terrestrial legs of the males. But unless you do so, if it were found
that only one sex had these supposedly vestigial limbs, I think you would
have to accede that they were not originally limbs, but rather their sole
purpose from start to finish were aids in sex.
> The main issue is that the legs of _Basilosaurus_ can't do what
> legs usually do, which is to be the primary means of locomotion for
> an animal. Gingerich et al. find it significant that they came
> up with a plausible function for hind limbs that CAN'T be
> used for locomotion, as this might explain why the legs would
> be retained for a longer period of time as the animal evolved
> to a fully aquatic form. Everything they say points to the
> "intermediacy" of _Basilosaurus_. Read the abstract. Read the
> last paragraph. Here's a sentence from the last paragraph:
> "In the meantime, retention of well-formed pelvic
> limbs in _Basilosaurus_ corroborates the morphological
> primitiveness of archaeocetes."
> JA
>:> None is mentioned. I doubt it for _Ambulocetus_, as the
>:> legs likely still had a propulsion use (as in otters), and were
>:> also of a size still useful for walking. Only partial hind limbs
>:> of _Rodhcetus_ were found -- no knee could be analyzed. The
>:> reduced femur did, however, have a well-developed patellar groove.
> DF
>: Is this right: _Basilosaurus_ has vestigial limbs, but they are not merely
>: reduced versions of terrestrial legs, but rather have modifications of
>: previously existing legs? The legs became smaller and smaller and also
>: evolved a complex locking mechanism at the same time?
> If you don't have this paper, I implore you to see it, if
> only to appreciate the scale involved. The entire skeleton is
> 16 meters long. The femur, the largest bone in the leg, is
> 25 cm long! These things are _tiny_ compared to the body of
> the whale. These are _highly_ reduced legs.
_Assuming_, as an evolutionist might like to _assume_, that they were
legs to begin with originally, then yes, they are highly reduced legs.
> They describe minor modifications indicating, essentially,
> a closed (swimming) and open (mating?) position. So, intriguingly,
> what you say is correct. While drastically reduced in size, such
> that the locomotory function is impossible, they may have been
> modified via evolution for a secondary use. So, cogently,
> they are definite evidence for macroevolution and may be evidence
> for microevolution. Cool, eh?
You can't lose, can you? You originally say that they can't be used for
walking or swimming so they are vestigial and thus constitute evidence
for macroevolution; say that the authors make an attempt to come up with
a function, and imply that the attempt failed; note that Gould even says
that it is unnecessary to try to come up with a function for them. Only
later does it come out, after someone else read the article and presented
what the authors said, that the authors didn't just attempt to but
actually did come up with a function, and that they had about 5 reasons
for their belief. Now that this information has come out, this use as a
sex aid is supposed to constitute evidence for macroevolution and at the
same time doubles as evidence for evolution in being a vestigial limb.
It's a win-win situation for you: no known function, it's vestigial and
so evidence. Known function, it's still vestigial, plus it's evidence
for macroevolution.
If something that has a known use can be called vestigial and thus
evidence for macroevolution, you might as well call every organ and limb
that has a known use vestigial and evidence for evolution, since it came
from primitive precursors, correct? For example, you could say that the
human brain, liver, kidney, pancreas, throat, stomach, tongue, eye, toes,
heart, collar bone, sternum, nose, teeth, kneecap, thigh, heel, ankle,
elbow, ear, fingers, and skull are all evidence for evolution. Don't you
see how ridiculous this is, if everything is allowed to count as evidence
for evolution? Btw, I got the impression from Gould's _Dinosaur in a
Haystack_ (1995) that he was being less than candid on pg. 366 about the
matter of the use of the limb.
> The interesting thing that you've made me realize is that
> the main reason that Gingerich et al. discuss this is that in
> the first specimens of _Basilosaurus_, the remains of the legs
> were considered vestigial and functionless. As they say:
> "... an Eocene whale with functional hind limbs
> narrows the gap considerably between generalized Paleocene
> land mammals that used hind limbs in locomotion and Oligocene-Recent
> modern whales that lack pelvic limbs."
> May I ask you a question? Modern whales still have
> skeletal indications of pelvic bones, the femur, and occasionally
> the tibia "embedded in the musculature of the ventral body wall".
> How would you classify these structures: functional or vestigial?
> If functional, what do they do? If vestigial, why are they
> there?
I'm not the person to ask. What use have biologists discovered for them?
If they have not discovered a use for them, as an evolutionist you can
only hope that a use is not eventually found for them. That is, of
course, if you want to avoid the absurdity of insisting on calling
something that has a known use "vestigial."
> DF
>:>: Do you believe that it is possible for natural selection to make use
>:>: of mutations and turn a race of bears into a population of whales
>:>: under the right environmental conditions? Justify your answer.
> JA
>:> Given time, yes, it would be possible. The primary
>:> factor necessitating it would probably be an almost exclusively
>:> marine food supply, and competition that requires the bears to
>:> utilize solely this food supply. On present-day Earth, unlikely.
>:> Leopard seals are pretty similar to what I'd expect them to be
>:> like if it could happen. (But note that the presence of leopard
>:> seals argues against the bears changing into aquatic organisms.
>:> Right now they'd by outcompeted in the southern oceans by
>:> leopard seals, and in the northern oceans by killer whales, which
>:> share one of the bears major food sources -- salmon. So the
>:> bears are better off utilizing salmon in the rivers, and that
>:> should make them keep their legs.)
> DF
>: I was rather surprised by this answer. Do you think that it is possible
>: for a population of humans to evolve into a race of bears over a long
>: period of time given the proper environmental conditions? If not that,
>: from a bear to a man?
> JA
> What I think is possible is far removed from what I know to
> be probable. It might be fun to come up with a scenario requiring
> that man would become primarily carnivorous. We're omnivores,
> and given our intelligence, we're likely to stay that way.
> So, I think it highly unlikely that we would change much,
> given the way we are now. On the other hand, I can envision bears
> becoming more intelligent bears a bit more easily.
Unfortunately, my imagination does not stretch that far, neither for
bears becoming whales, nor for bears becoming humans. I'm am curious,
however, how many genetics courses have you taken?
> I'm actually more intrigued by the one advantage humans
> have over the animal kingdom -- the ability to run long distances.
[snip part 2]
James G. Acker
david ford (dfo...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:
Nicholas Plummer wrote:
: > Once again, the problem boils down to your failure to give a precise
: > definition for your term, "vertical change." Does it correspond to
: > speciation? Change at the genus level? A higher taxonomic category?
David Ford replied:
: Vertical change: a major structural change, as with the appearance of a new
: organ or the replacement of a human hand with a bear paw.
Question, David. Is the "blowhole" of dolphins and whales
sufficiently different from the nostrils of other organisms
[any other organisms will suffice, but for sake of comparison, use
other aquatic mammals, such as seals, sea lions, or walruses as
references] to be considered a "new" organ?
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
James G. Acker
david ford (dfo...@gl.umbc.edu) wrote:
: James G. Acker on 9 AUG 1996:
JA: Remember, I'm not an authority. What I will tell you
is that I can point to structures in other aquatic organisms --
sharks -- and say that their purpose is as aids in sex. The
structures are called "claspers". They don't resemble legs.
(They probably resemble modified fins.)
Now I will need help from the onlookers, but I'm guessing that
in some organism somewhere, there is an organ found only in
the males that was originally "something else", that now functions
as an aid in sex. In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and
predict that such exists, and I assure you that I have no prior
knowledge that it does. I will also predict that it will be
obvious what the adapted organ was used for prior to its adaptation
as an aid in sex.
If such is found, will you give up this line of
questioning?
: > The main issue is that the legs of _Basilosaurus_ can't do what
I'm not trying to win. I'm trying to get this clear.
: walking or swimming so they are vestigial and thus constitute evidence
: for macroevolution; say that the authors make an attempt to come up with
: a function, and imply that the attempt failed; note that Gould even says
: that it is unnecessary to try to come up with a function for them. Only
: later does it come out, after someone else read the article and presented
: what the authors said, that the authors didn't just attempt to but
: actually did come up with a function, and that they had about 5 reasons
: for their belief. Now that this information has come out, this use as a
: sex aid is supposed to constitute evidence for macroevolution and at the
Wait a minute. The smallness of the legs is evidence for
macroevolution. The putative use in copulation might indicate
modification for a secondary use, which (using your terminology)
is evidence for microevolution.
: same time doubles as evidence for evolution in being a vestigial limb.
: It's a win-win situation for you: no known function, it's vestigial and
: so evidence. Known function, it's still vestigial, plus it's evidence
: for macroevolution.
Read carefully what I said. It's obvious that the reduced
leg of _Basilosaurus_ are prima facie evidence for macroevolution.
However, it is not beyond the ken of possibility that the little
legs might have been able to move. That's what the authors are
arguing when they say the limbs were functional. So, even as
the legs were getting smaller, the authors cite indications that they
were also becoming modified. No surprise! The retention of movement
capability could just as well been to keep them out of the way during
sex as to be an aid in sex (the locked/splayed position illustrated
suggests this to me).
: If something that has a known use can be called vestigial and thus
: evidence for macroevolution, you might as well call every organ and limb
: that has a known use vestigial and evidence for evolution, since it came
The applicable definition of _vestige_ is "a bodily part or
organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in
comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the
individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms".
The legs of _Basilosaurus_ would be classed as vestigial
under this definition, because they are small and degenerate legs.
The definition does not preclude the use of vestigial organs for
_something_. It is a comparative and subjective term.
: from primitive precursors, correct? For example, you could say that the
: human brain, liver, kidney, pancreas, throat, stomach, tongue, eye, toes,
: heart, collar bone, sternum, nose, teeth, kneecap, thigh, heel, ankle,
: elbow, ear, fingers, and skull are all evidence for evolution. Don't you
Think back, David. You've been looking for "new" organs
as evidence for evolution. If you'll remember, I gave you a fairly
recent theory put forth for the Great Cambrian Diversfication
Period, which is the development of the gut. Now, the gut in
such things as worms is pretty simple -- not much more than a tube.
But in this tube, nutrition comes in at one end, gets assimilated
for the use of the organism, and waste goes out the other end --
which is the exact same function as our own digestive system,
but we have "new" organs that allow assimilation of much more
diverse foodstuffs. So yes, scientists would say that our
digestive system evolved from primitive precursor guts. (You
know that I don't, but that's what scientists would say is
part of the process of evolution.)
: see how ridiculous this is, if everything is allowed to count as evidence
: for evolution? Btw, I got the impression from Gould's _Dinosaur in a
: Haystack_ (1995) that he was being less than candid on pg. 366 about the
: matter of the use of the limb.
Some things are clearer than others. As for Gould, I only
stated what I read.
: > The interesting thing that you've made me realize is that
: > the main reason that Gingerich et al. discuss this is that in
: > the first specimens of _Basilosaurus_, the remains of the legs
: > were considered vestigial and functionless. As they say:
: > "... an Eocene whale with functional hind limbs
: > narrows the gap considerably between generalized Paleocene
: > land mammals that used hind limbs in locomotion and Oligocene-Recent
: > modern whales that lack pelvic limbs."
: > May I ask you a question? Modern whales still have
: > skeletal indications of pelvic bones, the femur, and occasionally
: > the tibia "embedded in the musculature of the ventral body wall".
: > How would you classify these structures: functional or vestigial?
: > If functional, what do they do? If vestigial, why are they
: > there?
: I'm not the person to ask. What use have biologists discovered for them?
Well, they have been used to demonstrate the ancestry of
whales from four-legged terrestrial mammals, but other than that, I
don't think they've come up with much ;-)
: If they have not discovered a use for them, as an evolutionist you can
: only hope that a use is not eventually found for them. That is, of
: course, if you want to avoid the absurdity of insisting on calling
: something that has a known use "vestigial."
See the definition already provided. Being classed as
vestigial does not preclude use and functionality. That has
been your harbor, but it it not a safe one.
: > DF
: >: I was rather surprised by this answer. Do you think that it is possible
: >: for a population of humans to evolve into a race of bears over a long
: >: period of time given the proper environmental conditions? If not that,
: >: from a bear to a man?
:
: > JA
: > What I think is possible is far removed from what I know to
: > be probable. It might be fun to come up with a scenario requiring
: > that man would become primarily carnivorous. We're omnivores,
: > and given our intelligence, we're likely to stay that way.
: > So, I think it highly unlikely that we would change much,
: > given the way we are now. On the other hand, I can envision bears
: > becoming more intelligent bears a bit more easily.
:
: Unfortunately, my imagination does not stretch that far, neither for
: bears becoming whales, nor for bears becoming humans. I'm am curious,
: however, how many genetics courses have you taken?
First, with regard to your imagination. Do you know
what the capybara is? I hope you do -- visualize it. (If you
can't visualize it, look it up in an encyclopedia.) What if
I asked you, "Would it be possible to envision the capybara
becoming more aquatic (it is observed swimming quite a bit in South
American rivers)? If it became more aquatic, what changes
would you expect to see? What would a modified semi-aquatic
capybara look like? How much did your imagination get
stretched as you visualized those changes?"
As for genetics, I haven't taken any courses. My
field is chemical oceanography, including a background in
chemistry and a course in biochemistry. I've learned some
basic genetics, but I let the experts argue about genetics.
I'll stick with what I know better. I have amassed a few
easily accessible sources on Foraminifera, whenever you're
ready. I am curious, however, how many geological
oceanography courses have you taken?
Michael Grice
[followups cut to talk.origins]
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> blessed us with the following wisdom:
>Michael Noreen on Sun, 11 AUG 1996:
>Thusly david ford Spake unto :
[snip]
>The theory of evolution certainly has spawned a variety of theories for how
>all these miraculous miracles are to occur. Eyes evolving independently
>40+ times, livers becoming kidneys, duplicate kidneys becoming pancreases,
>complex biochemical pathways evolving where the pathway cannot work until
>the myriad components are perfectly in place, reptiles hatching out of
>chicken eggs, bears becoming whales, bears becoming humans. It's enough to
>make one dizzy.
1. Considering the work summarized in a recent article of Discover,
the eye may evolved much less than forty times; the last ancestor
common to insects and mammals clearly had some sort of eye.
2. Straw man organ argument: that organs and complex biochemical
pathway will not work unless everything is perfectly in place. You
certainly have not shown this.
3. "[R]eptiles hatching out of chicken eggs." I do recall pointing
out a few examples where manipulation of the environment of a chicken
fetus will cause reptilian structures to grow.
This is an observation, based on a repeatable experiment. Of course,
this does suggest that birds retain genetic code similiar to that of
reptiles, and that birds are related in a way explained by the theory
of evolution.
4. "[B]ears becoming whales." I believe you quoted Darwin
speculating about this, although it has long since been rejected. You
way want to look at the dreaded transitional fossil FAQ, to see what
scientists actually consider the ancestor of whales.
5. "[B]ears becoming humans." Where, oh where did you get THAT? Did
Darwin speculate about that also? I'm inclined to doubt it, although
I may be wrong. You may want to check out that transitional fossil
FAQ again, so you can see what scientists actually regard as the
ancestors of humans.
You'd do much better if you tried to refute what evolutionary theory
actually said, David.
Michael
gib...@mailbag.com
Michael Noreen
Replying to david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu>
:
: > That would be Lamarckism, and I do not believe in it. No, the thing is
: > this: Assume the organism, for whatever reason, through a genetic
: > mutation got to have two livers. That is one liver more than the
: > organism actually need. At the same time the selection against having
: > an extra liver is probably not extreme; it is conceivable that the
: > organism could survive and pass on its genes. As generations
: > progressed there would be mutations in the genes coding for these two
: > livers, but as long as at least one set of genes continued to function,
: > the organism is OK, and if, at any time, a mutation causes the
: > duplicate liver to take on a role which is slightly different from the
: > original there will be no selection against it. If this slightly
: > different function proved beneficial, then the trait would spread, and
: > further specialization would mean the arising of a wholly new organ.
:
: Do you really propose that it is possible using this method to make a
: duplicate liver into say a needed kidney over a long period of time by
: natural selection collecting beneficial errors in DNA?
I wouldn't totally rule out the possibility. As it stands this really
is a very unproven hypothesis; it is felt that the case for HOX
mutations is strong in some cases, e.g. the appearance of metamerism
(segmentation). The above scenario is a lot more fanciful, and very
hard to prove.
: > Now, this scenario isn't very likely. Almost all present examples of
...
: > mutates into random noise). It is not however impossible to imagine
: > that 'redundant' organs could be specialized to new tasks.
: > All it
: > takes is that one mutation in the organ causes it to be ever so
: > slightly useful for another task than it was originally used.
:
: A lot more than one mutation would be needed to make a duplicate liver into
: that needed kidney.
Yes, but all it would really take is that first mutation; once the
organism benefits from the duplicate organ natural selection kicks in;
even if the advantage is just 1-2%, the trait will be spread to all
members of the population within a few thousand generations, and it'll
of course continue to adapt during that time, giving more and more
advantage. This bit, that even small advantages will cause the trait
to spread, can be shown mathematically btw.
: > However, as I also stated this isn't by any means the normal state of
: > affairs in evolution, but a theory of how radically new complex organs
: > can arise.
:
: The theory of evolution certainly has spawned a variety of theories for how
: all these miraculous miracles are to occur. Eyes evolving independently
: 40+ times, livers becoming kidneys, duplicate kidneys becoming pancreases,
: complex biochemical pathways evolving where the pathway cannot work until
: the myriad components are perfectly in place, reptiles hatching out of
: chicken eggs, bears becoming whales, bears becoming humans. It's enough to
: make one dizzy.
Umm, several of the above points has quite good backing, for instance
the bit about the eyes, and I believe you'll find that it's ungulates
which became whales, and others are plain creationist silliness, ie
reptiles hatching out of chicken eggs.
: >> Why do you say poor? I should think it would like to have an extra
: >> set of wings and halteres, so that it can adapt them to new uses.
:
: > The beast can't fly. The wings function, but the fly can't fly - they
: > get in the way of each other. Also, as was pointed out to me, the
: > halteres are not doubled; they are converted into wings - and since
: > flies use their halteres as gyros, these mutants can't keep track of
: > direction and speed in the air.
:
: This could be lethal, being unable to "keep track of direction and speed in
: the air" and having wings that "get in the way of each other." I'd say
: that natural selection will kill the poor thing: in the wild, this mutant
It will indeed, provided the natural selection isn't lapse for any
reason. It might interest you to know that flies living on islands
often lose their flight, and since there's no predators around, they
survive. Also, I never suggested that our poor bithorax mutant was out
to conquer the world - it just shows that radical, 'macromutational',
changes can result from mutations in HOX genes.
: will not survive long. Fortunately for the theory of evolution, the
: production of things that get in the way and disorient an organism, can, in
: the long run, be converted into entirely new organs and limbs through the
: process of natural selection. Or was that the mechanism that was going to
: kill the thing?
Yes, that's the process which'll do both. Selection isn't necessarily,
or even usually, lethal; as I said above, a difference in fitness of
just a percent or two will cause shifts in the gene pool. A mutant
such as bithorax would certainly require very mild selection to be
able to adapt, but it would be perfectly at home on, say, a small
island without predators - such islands often have wingless species of
flies, or species with wings too large to fly with, instead used for
signalling conspecifics (as in adapting to a new role!).
: > It may be able to adapt those new organs to completely new uses, but
: > first it must survive while having them. As I said HOX mutations, as
: > all mutations with drastic effects, usually lower survival radically.
:
: A _minor_ difficulty.
It certainly requires selection to be very mild initially. It has been
speculated that this is why radically new constructions generally only
arise after mass extinctions, when competition can be expected to be
decreased since the competitors simply are dead.
It seems like you are missing the importance of this somewhat - we
have here a mutation which is so gross that IF this creature could
survive in nature, it would not be classified as a fly anymore, but
something completely unique. Clear macroevolution in the creationist
sense. That it requires extremely mild selection, and basically can
only live in labs or possibly on small predator-free islands is
besides the point.
MVH: Mike Noreen |"Cold as the northern winds
Net: ev-mi...@nrm.se | in December mornings,
| Cold is the cry that rings
| from this far distant shore."
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to
any commercial mail list. So up yours, mail-spammers!
Michael Noreen
Replying to chr...@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood)
: |> These different levels of things in the fossil record are just as
: |> easily explained by saying that God created all these things at
: |> various intervals in the earth's history, they were fossilized,
: |> they were killed in an extinction, and then it was time for the
: |> next set, and so on.
:
: These different levels of things in the fossil record are just as
: easily explained by saying that my Cat, Sidney, created all these
: things Last Thursday, complete with the appearance of history and age.
Only then you'd have a lying cat, and we can't have that, can we?
BTW I think there are weaknesses in Last Thursdayism - how do you, for
instance, explain why the world isn't full of blind mice and small
flightless birds?
: Chris
Wenthold Paul G.
In article <321279ef...@news.kth.se>,
Michael Noreen <ev-mi...@nrm.se> wrote:
>Replying to chr...@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood)
>
>: |> These different levels of things in the fossil record are just as
>: |> easily explained by saying that God created all these things at
>: |> various intervals in the earth's history, they were fossilized,
>: |> they were killed in an extinction, and then it was time for the
>: |> next set, and so on.
>:
>: These different levels of things in the fossil record are just as
>: easily explained by saying that my Cat, Sidney, created all these
>: things Last Thursday, complete with the appearance of history and age.
>
>Only then you'd have a lying cat, and we can't have that, can we?
>
>BTW I think there are weaknesses in Last Thursdayism - how do you, for
>instance, explain why the world isn't full of blind mice and small
>flightless birds?
Because they weren't created. Fits perfectly into the Last Thursdayism
model. Last Thursdayism predicts that the world should be
_exactly_ as it is, with complete memories and everything.
And the geometry optimization I remember running yesterday
was actually created earlier today completely finished.
paul
--
!! Joe: "He will come back to you. Don't worry." !!
!! Meg: "But how do you know he'll come back?" !!
!! Sister: "BECAUSE HE'S A BASEBALL STAR, THAT'S HOW HE KNOWS!"!!
!! (from the Broadway hit "Damn Yankees" starring Jerry Lewis) !!
Christopher C. Wood
In article <321279ef...@news.kth.se>, ev-mi...@nrm.se (Michael Noreen) writes:
|> Replying to chr...@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood)
|> : |> These different levels of things in the fossil record are just as
|> : |> easily explained by saying that God created all these things at
|> : |> various intervals in the earth's history, they were fossilized,
|> : |> they were killed in an extinction, and then it was time for the
|> : |> next set, and so on.
|> : These different levels of things in the fossil record are just as
|> : easily explained by saying that my Cat, Sidney, created all these
|> : things Last Thursday, complete with the appearance of history and age.
|> Only then you'd have a lying cat, and we can't have that, can we?
Where is the lie? Sidney tells me quite plainly that he created the
Universe. He also says quite plainly that he did this only for his
enjoyment, and feels no particular benevolence to his creation.
|> BTW I think there are weaknesses in Last Thursdayism - how do you, for
|> instance, explain why the world isn't full of blind mice and small
|> flightless birds?
Because Sidney didn't make them? What would be the challenge, if the
mice were blind and the birds were flightless?
Sidney did get chased back inside last weekend by some blue jays.
Fiesty birds, those jays.
Chris
--
Speaking only for myself, of course.
Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com ca...@CFAnet.com
Randy M. Wadkins
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.960814...@umbc8.umbc.edu>
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
> > Waves create ripples in submerged sand.
> > Evaporation creates salt crystals in tidal pool.
> > Gravity and electromagnetic radiation create pulsed signals from
> > collapsed star which fools scientists into thinking they have
> > discovered intelligent life.
> > Supernova explosion creates higher atomic number elements.
> > Random collisions of elements in space create complex organic
> > molecules.
> > Need I go on? Could you not think of these on your own? Or do you
> > have ideological blinders which force you to deny these examples?
>
> There was a reason for my including the word "significant" in describing
> the fact that order does not arise from disorder without intelligent
> input. In the case of cleaning a room, a mind is needed, and in the case
> of photosynthesis and the growing of an oak tree from an acorn, a
> blueprint in the form of the genetic code is needed, in which case the
> question gets changed to where did the genetic code come from. I have an
> idea of what significant means to me, so let's see if that meaning can be
> conveyed.
For those of you joining late, this is yet another example of Mr.
Ford's
complete lack of knowledge of thermodynamics (and/or information
theory).
Although I've covered this before, let me just bring up a few points:
(1). The correlation of "disorder" to entropy is intuitive only for
very, very simple systems.
(2). Living organisms are not at equilibrium, and are not in an
isolated, adiabatic system.
(3). "Order" does indeed arise from "disorder", as given in many
examples,
without the need for any intelligent design. (and, actually, the act
of
creating an organism from scratch would violate the 2nd Law).
(4). A living organism in it's environment is a highly _disorganized_
state, from a thermodynamic point of view (this is where the thermo-
dynamic notion of "disorder" and the anthromorphic notion of "disorder"
part company.
These topics are usually covered in freshman biochemistry courses.
By my count, Mr. Ford has yet to get a single fact about genetics,
evolution, chemistry, or biochemistry. Did I miss anything?
--Randy
***************************************************************
These opinions are my own and not those of the U.S. Navy
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer,
pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more
tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and
attractive..."--Carl Sagan, _The_Demon-Haunted_World_.
***************************************************************
Alan Scott
Followups trimmed to talk.origins.
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.960814...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
>Theories must be capable of being falsified if they are to be considered
>scientific. For creationism, there is no state of affairs, that if it
>were otherwise, would show the theory to be incorrect-- it's
>unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific. The theory of evolution is
>likewise unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.
<snipped huge post. Ford starts with a glaring error and only degenerates>
I can show that you are wrong by giving irrefutable examples which
would immediately falsify the scientific theory of evolution.
1) The discovery that species have not changed through time would
falsify evolution. (dogs cats and people fossils in pre-cambrian strata
would be a big start if you could find it David)
2) A scientifically sound observation of special creation of
a new kind would falsify evolution.
If you disagree with these examples please explain your reasoning and
I will clarify your misunderstandings. If you would like more examples
just ask.
--
Al Scott---Creationist quote of the Month: "It is not possible for there to be
two omnipotent beings, because if they got in a wrestling match, then they'd
tie, and they wouldn't be all-powerful anymore. [...] A cause is logically
greater than it's effect, [...]" (David Ford)
Alan Scott
Followups trimmed to talk.origins:
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.960814...@umbc8.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>Alan Scott wrote on Wed, 7 AUG 1996:
>> Order without any intelligent intervention:
>
>> Waves create ripples in submerged sand.
>> Evaporation creates salt crystals in tidal pool.
>> Gravity and electromagnetic radiation create pulsed signals from
>> collapsed star which fools scientists into thinking they have
>> discovered intelligent life.
>> Supernova explosion creates higher atomic number elements.
>> Random collisions of elements in space create complex organic
>> molecules.
>> Need I go on? Could you not think of these on your own? Or do you
>> have ideological blinders which force you to deny these examples?
>
>There was a reason for my including the word "significant" in describing
>the fact that order does not arise from disorder without intelligent
>input. In the case of cleaning a room, a mind is needed, and in the case
>of photosynthesis and the growing of an oak tree from an acorn, a
>blueprint in the form of the genetic code is needed, in which case the
>question gets changed to where did the genetic code come from. I have an
>idea of what significant means to me, so let's see if that meaning can be
>conveyed.
I must have missed the word 'significant' in the second law of thermo....
Maybe you could quote me the relevant passage where the word 'significant'
comes up? Is it something like, "No significant order may be formed
without the aid of an intelligence."? You must have had some seriously
warped physics books to read.....
>"Waves create ripples in submerged sand." If you look at these ripples,
>can you tell whether or not there was intelligence behind the making of
>them? I have an ideas of some ripples in the sand in my mind, and I'd
>say no because the amount of order is not significant, the order is not
>great enough.
<creationist mode on>
You have kazillions of grains of sand all stacked in only one way. How
many possible cominations of a kazillion grains of sand do you think
are possible? Now how many of those combinations look like the ripples on
a single particular beach? 1 in 10^100kazillion I'd bet.
<creationist mode off>
>If, however, there is a significant amount of order in the
>way the ripples appear, then you could say that there was intelligence
>behind making it: if you saw words in the sand, characters that meant
>something, that would be evidence for design. In one case, the marks
>have no meaning, the order present is not present to a significant
>degree, and in the other case, the amount of order is such that the
>characters in the sand mean something.
So now your second law read something like:
"...significant order being defined as anything which spells out
understandable words..."
Fascinating. So you would then say that the genetic code does not
have significant order to be intelligently created, correct?
Or does AACCDDDGDACDAGDAGC mean something in English?
<more BS about 'significant intelligent' order deleted>
>"Random collisions of elements in space create complex organic molecules."
>I don't know what this is referring to. It sounds almost like Hoyle's
>postulation of viruses that originate in space. How complex are these
>molecules? Show me one, and I'll make a judgement, based on the degree of
>order present, whether design was behind its making or not.
Try HC11N.
Obviously not significant however, since it doesn't spell out
a word, correct? I think I've got the hang of this Creationist
2nd law of thermo. Thanks for the laughs Dave.
Michael Noreen
Replying to chr...@lexis-nexis.com (Christopher C. Wood)
: |> : These different levels of things in the fossil record are just as
: |> : easily explained by saying that my Cat, Sidney, created all these
: |> : things Last Thursday, complete with the appearance of history and age.
:
: |> Only then you'd have a lying cat, and we can't have that, can we?
:
: Where is the lie? Sidney tells me quite plainly that he created the
: Universe. He also says quite plainly that he did this only for his
: enjoyment, and feels no particular benevolence to his creation.
Well, since your cat created the world like that it is obvious he did
so to fool researchers into believing the world was old. The Lying God
scenario, with Sidney as liar. Shame, Sidney. It's not nice to lie.
: |> BTW I think there are weaknesses in Last Thursdayism - how do you, for
: |> instance, explain why the world isn't full of blind mice and small
: |> flightless birds?
:
: Because Sidney didn't make them? What would be the challenge, if the
: mice were blind and the birds were flightless?
My experience of cats suggest that they are not overly interested in
challenges. They're far to sensible and practical for stuff like that.
Challenges are for dogs and humans.
Jim Carr
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
>
>These different levels of things in the fossil record are just as easily
>in the earth's history, they were fossilized, they were killed in an
>extinction, and then it was time for the next set, and so on.
True, and they are also explain by saying that God created them last week,
along with the Bible and all the bits recording this discussion on disk
files worldwide. They can also be described by natural selection and a
variety of physical and geological processes taking place over many years.
Inspection of the 'date' function would suggest that the single most
likely explanation for all of this is that the universe was created on
1/1/1970 at 00:00 GMT. Try to refute that statement and you will see
that yours is totally unscientific.
In addition, none of these explanations are what Creation Science proponents
want taught in school. Indeed, yours would get you drummed out of the ICR.
>The very fact that we can subdivide geological time on the basis of the
>types of plants and animals it contains speaks against the theory of
>evolution.
This only shows that humans are real good at identifying patterns. The
Wall Street Journal produces an explanation of the provably random
pattern of the Dow Jones index in every issue. It is not the divisions
but the changes with time that are important.
>"Science cannot answer the deepest questions... As soon as you ask why is
>there something instead of nothing, you have gone beyond science.
That is correct. Science tells you how (although often the statements
use the word why when talking about mathematical relationships). Religion
tells you why. Religion should leave the how to science and stop trying
to push a 6000 year old earth into science education. It has enough to
deal with concerning morality, if Billy Graham's lack of success after
years of preaching to Nixon is any indication of the scope of the problem.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Olympics report: whitewater slalom
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | and track&field were awesome in
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | person. Page with some of my
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | kayak photos will be coming soon.
Ryals
> Steve Geller <gel...@ssl.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > james wrote:
> >
> > I find in this thread what I believe is a tendency to mistake the
> > phenomenon with the theory... Evolution is a phenomenon, like gravity,
> > like matter... There are theories of evolution as there are theories of
> > matter. The modification of those theories due to falsification does
> > not constitute removal of the phenomena.
> No, there are only theories. Dropping your pencil is a phenomenon, so
> is the variety of life. Gravity is the well-established theory to
> explain one; evolution is the theory for the other.
Theories, as do facts, attempt to describe phenomenon. The better
the theory, the more accurate and factual it is.
Evolution and Creationism are both theories that attempt to describe
how the human came to be what it is today.
The most accurate and factual theory will prevail until such a time
as one comes along that more closely fits nature.
If the constraints of a theory are strict or mathematically fixed,
then it must die or be swallowed up by a better theory. If the
theory is loosly defined, then it can be expanded and modified as
new facts come to light.
Creationists for example, have attempted to swallow up evolution,
explaining that god has created man with evolutionary intent, and
man will, therefore, change to become more like his image as time
passes.
This is what makes creationism such a long lasting theory. You
can't win an argument with a flexible theory such as creationism
since the defenders of the theory will just modify it to fit nature,
and some systems such as Catholicism actually employ the use of
scientists whos job it is to make the religion better fit nature.
They mask this role by saying that they are there to discover
scientific proof that god exists, but that is about as contradictive
as you can get, since god supposedly exists within the realm of the
supernatural and, therefore, outside of the realm of science.
What it boils down to, however, is that every theory attempts to fit
nature, so what we ultimately worship is Nature.
Now ain't that a kick in the religous pants?
Rick
Michael Grice
[David emailed; sci.* groups cut; followups set to t.o.; email if you
want a reply, as my net time has dwindled and I may not see it.]
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> blessed us with the following wisdom:
[snip]
>You've mentioned that chemistry isn't random several times, as has Chris
>W. Could you explain what is meant by the phrase and how it relates to
>life coming from non-life, perhaps with some examples? Here are some
>examples you've presented on intelligence and the arising of order, but
>I don't see how they relate to spontaneous generation. Are you
>suggesting that heating a soup of amino acids and nucleotides results in
>life being crystallized out, or saying that gravity causes the amino
>acids and nucleotides to coalesce in the form of a bacterium?
One of the unproven assumptions your argument rests on is that
abiogenesis is an entirely random process. Chemistry isn't random;
molecules act in certain ways. You haven't shown that the laws of
chemistry prevent a non-random process from forming life from
non-life.
The fact that *some* progress has been made in the field of
abiogenesis, while it hardly proves anything, does suggest that your
arguments against it are premature. For one example, I point you to
recent articles in Nature, showing that certain peptides can catalyze
their own formation.
The examples of order arising from non-order arise spontaneously, in
nature, and without intelligent guidance. Your argument says they
aren't possible.
>-----begin inserted text-----
>Michael Grice wrote on Sat, 10 AUG 1996:
>> Intelligence is not part of the Second Law, FYI. Patches of "negative
>> entropy" arise all over: stalagtites/stalagmites, the patterns of
>> dunes and lake-bottom sands, the formation of stars from clouds of
>> interstellar dust and gas, the regular pattern of pulsars, and so on
>> (apologies to Alan Scott).
>> How about crystals? Crystals most definitely have structures,
>> sometimes of great complexity, that they achieve at the expense of all
>> the entropy radiated off into their surroundings as they cool. Many
>> crystalline substances have quite complicated structures.
>> Order can (and does) form without intelligent supervision. As a
>> chemist, I have to add that intelligent control of a process often
>> amounts to little more than throwing the ingredients in a water bath
>> and heating them. [Much of organic synthesis consists of *optimizing*
>> simple processes, so that reactions that produce a relatively small
>> amount of product produce more product.]
>-----end inserted text-----
>> Have you considered the possibility that the first life forms didn't
>> use RNA or DNA? That the first form of life may have been much
>> simpler than a bacterium? These first few critters would have been at
>> a serious disadvantage when RNA/DNA systems developed.
>[snip]
>>>Back up your charge. What is wrong with the dime illustration for
>>>depicting the odds of 1 in 10^37? Keep in mind that those exponents can
>>>be deceptive: 10^1=10, 10^2=100, 10^3=1,000, 10^4=10,000, and so on.
>>>Each rise in the exponent translates into a 10-fold increase in the
>>>resulting number. There are 10^80 atoms in the universe; that 80 may
>>>look small, but 10^80 is huge.
>>>10^37=10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
>> Ross assumes the whole process is random. If the process is not
>> random, his calculations are worthless.
>> [By the way, I know how scientific notation works....]
>They're not his calculations; Ross did the analogy for 1 part in 10^37.
>Hoyle's calculated odds were 1 in 10^40,000, while Morowitz's
>calculation was 1 in 10^100,000,000,000. I didn't mean to be or come
>across as condescending by writing out the number.
Sorry if I was snippy.
>>>> Also, please note that all the evidence for evolution comes *after*
>>>> the formation of the first life (however it happened).
>>>>> Much worse odds than Hoyle's 1 in 10^40,000 are provided by physicist
>>>>> Harold Morowitz, who figured the odds of an _entire_ bacterium
>>>>> reassembling by chance whose every chemical bond had been broken as being
>>>>> 1 in 10^100,000,000,000.[Shapiro, 128.] Twenty billion years is pitifully
>>>>> inadequate for the chance assembly of even the "simplest" forms of life
>>>>> even if the entire visible cosmos consisted of a primordial soup; if
>>>>> significantly less complex, they could not exist.[Ross, 140-1.]
>>>> Every chemical bond has been broken? No one proposes that life formed
>>>> from a bunch of individual atoms thrown together.
>>>Chemical bonds, not atomic bonds.
>> David, you break every *chemical* bond in a bacterium and you will
>> wind up with a large collection of individual atoms. As you've
>> written it, this is what you get. The bonds holding two amino acids
>> together are not different than those holding the atoms together
>> inside each of the amino acids.
>> If you're talking about the odds of a bacterium forming from its
>> component amino acids, nucleotides, etc., *that* is another story
>> entirely.
>> It's still a straw man. Did he calculate the odds that *any*
>> bacterium would reassemble, or that the original bacterium would
>> reassemble? Makes a big difference in the odds. Furthermore, no one
>> is postulating that the first life would be as complex as a bacterium.
>It is true that to get a bacterium back, not all of the amino acids and
>nucleotides have to be sequenced in exactly the original way for the
>system to work, so the odds for reassembly would be better when we
>factor this in. However, some assumptions of Morowitz that make the
>odds go back down were that all the amino acids were bioactive and left-
>handed, and that only helpful chemical processes were at work-- no
>destructive processes.(Hugh Ross, _The Creator and the Cosmos_ (1993),
>141)
You didn't address the assumption that the first life form had to be a
bacterium.
>[snip]
>> So we couldn't tell if the laws of the universe favor abiogenesis or
>> if God did it directly?
>The laws of the universe do not favor spontaneous generation. If they
>did, then life would be spontaneously generating, yet we don't observe
>that.
How could you tell if a new life form had spontaneously formed?
Wouldn't current life forms ingest the raw materials?
Wouldn't newly-formed life forms have difficulty competing with
existing life forms?
Isn't the Earth currently far, far different than it was when the
first life would have formed (regardless of who's talking)?
>> So if somebody did create life in the lab, you wouldn't accept it as
>> evidence for evolution?
>If somebody creates life in the lab, that would only show that
>intelligence is needed for the creation of life.
See above. What if it were a matter of duplicating the conditions of
the ancient earth and leaving the lab alone for a while?
>[snip]
>>>> Please note that many of the raw materials hypothesized as having been
>>>> the raw materials of life could easily have come from comets (where
>>>> they have been found), which are believed to have bombarded the early
>>>> earth.
>>>The same asteroids that sterilized the earth also provided the amino
>>>acids and nucleotides that happened to get together to form life?
>>>Interesting.
>> But possible. [What do you mean, sterilized the earth? That
>> suggests, according to your view, that God put life on the earth and
>> allowed it to die off. Or are you referring to the Cretaceous
>> asteroid scenario?]
>-----begin inserted text-----
>david ford wrote: Did I read something about "the amount of time"?
>Schidlowski of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in _Nature_,
>333:313, reports from studying carbon 12 and carbon 13 isotopes that
>he's found, in the words of the title, "A 3,800-million-year isotopic
>record of life from carbon in sedimentary rocks." That's on the lower
>end.
>At the upper end, it's reported in _Nature_, 342:139-42, that early
>earth suffered much bombardment by asteroids, bombardments that may have
>sterilized the earth, with the latest sterilizing bombardment most
>likely occurring 3.8 billion years ago. (For something not requiring
>light, i.e., living near an ocean vent, it could have survived as early
>as 4.44 bya.)
"May have." "For something not requiring light." I don't find this
convincing, one way or the other.
>So, in the words of Chris Chyba and Carl Sagan, "The terrestrial origins
>of life must therefore have coincided with the final stages of the heavy
>bombardment of the inner Solar System..."-_Nature_, 355:125. You have
>extremely little time, if any, for your non-existent nucleotides and
>amino acids to happen to come together to form life.
>-----end inserted text-----
Possibly, but is this a consequence of God or the laws of nature or
Fred Hoyle's panspermia?
>[snip]
[snip-o-rama]
Michael
gib...@mailbag.com
Michael Grice
[David emailed for the hell of it, sci.* groups cut, followups cut to
t.o. If you want a reply, you may want to email me; my net time has
dwindled significantly.]
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> blessed us with the following wisdom:
>If a watch falls apart, would that be a process in accord with the 2nd law?
>If it is, would a putting together of the watch result in a local decrease in
>entropy?
Yes to the first question.
Putting the watch together would result in an overall increase in
entropy, regardless of what happens to the entropy of the watch.
Whatever process you use to put together the watch will create more
than enough entropy to compensate for any local decreases in entropy.