...Why Can't I get an Answer from this NG to this Simple Question about Evolution???

[jonathan]

I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.

'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
less order, neutral or more order over time?'

The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.

I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
because the implications of extrapolating that trend
into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
to the world view of the objectively trained.




Jonathan



"What mystery pervades a well!
The water lives so far,
Like neighbor from another world
Residing in a jar.

The grass does not appear afraid;
I often wonder he
Can stand so close and look so bold
At what is dread to me.

Related somehow they may be,-
The sedge stands next the sea,
Where he is floorless, yet of fear
No evidence gives he.

But nature is a stranger yet;
The ones that cite her most
Have never passed her haunted house,
Nor simplified her ghost.

To pity those that know her not
Is helped by the regret
That those who know her, know her less
The nearer her they get."



By E Dickinson.



s

[Bill]

On May 23, 11:46�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> � �'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> � �less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>
> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>
> Jonathan
>

Until you explain what you mean by order and how you would measure it,
the answer has to be "I don't know," because your question is not
specific enough to have a clear answer.

[Richard Norman]

Also he totally ignores substantial discussion about evolution and
"complexity" or evolution and "direction"

[Kermit]

Please provide a link to where you define "order", or perhaps a link
to a website that discusses it and at some point defines it (and which
you accept).

kermit

[John Bode]

On May 23, 11:46�am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> � �'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> � �less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>
> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>

Okay, fine, here's a stand: assuming "order" in the good ol'
thermodynamic sense, then the trend is obviously neutral. A
prokaryote is no more or less thermodynamically ordered than a
eukaryote. A trilobite would be no more or less ordered than a
lobster. A dinosaur would be no more or less ordered than a bird.

Plants are no more or less ordered than animals, which are no more or
less ordered than fungi.

If you have a different definition for "order" in mind, please share
it.

[Richard Norman]

In the beginning, the universe was without form and void and darkness
was on the face of the earth.
Now the universe has form, is not void, and the earth is lit.
Conclusions:
1) The total "order" in the universe must have increased.
2) The second law of thermodynamics is wrong.
3) All of science is wrong.
4) Evolution is wrong.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:39:58 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Bode
<jfbod...@gmail.com>:

Somehow I doubt the response will be enlightening, ambiguity
being the preferred discussion technique of those whose
intent is to cast doubt on evidence and logic.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[wiki trix]

On May 23, 12:46�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> � �'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> � �less order, neutral or more order over time?'

I answered this question several times. Here it is again: evolution,
like every other process, has a long term trend of producing less
order over time. Do you get it this time? Sheesh...

[Friar Broccoli]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:32:00 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 23, 12:46�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>
>> � �'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>> � �less order, neutral or more order over time?'

.

>I answered this question several times. Here it is again: evolution,
>like every other process, has a long term trend of producing less
>order over time. Do you get it this time? Sheesh...

In fairness (although certainly not justified for this poster) you
should specify thermodynamic "order" (or something else that is
defined). Maybe you did that in a previous reply.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[THE COLONEL]

Go soak yer head in the shitter, asswipe.

[Klaus Hellnick]

You have been answered several times. Apparently, you are too damned stupid
to understand the answers.
Klaus

"jonathan" wrote in message
news:AIOdnUaOxtJb2gPM...@giganews.com...

[jonathan]

"Klaus Hellnick" <khel...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:knlprb$2b2$1...@news.albasani.net...

> You have been answered several times. Apparently, you are too damned
> stupid
> to understand the answers.

You're wrong, all the answers before were much like the
ones I just now received. Either unresponsive, insulting or
just plain idiotic.

But maybe I missed an answer or two, could you repeat those
answers for me? What is the ng consensus?

[jonathan]

"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rbksp89s5up4tfd2v...@4ax.com...

That's not an answer to my question.



>

[air]

OK, I'll take a stab-

Let's assume that by 'order' you mean the thing that the 2nd law of
thermodynamics helps us keep track of. (apologies to all of those
actually educated in thermo). The Universe is running down - the
'order' declines over time and over the whole universe. Current
thinking is that in bazillions of years the observable space in which
we reside will be dark, empty and extremely boring. I call that
running down.

Locally (meaning at the scale of our solar system), the Sun is running
down - slowly burning up its nuclear fuel until in a couple of billion
years it will bloat into a red giant and collapse to a white dwarf
(google main sequence stars for details). I can hardly wait.

Very locally (meaning on Earth) some things are running down (like
radioactive elements in the Earth's core). But lots of other things
are not running down-they are happily harvesting the energy of the sun
to do things like build internets and waste time on them. As long as
the Sun provides the energy, it is possible to employ that energy to
make things that are extremely 'orderly.'

So- evolution can make things less orderly, can keep things about as
orderly as they currently are, or make things more orderly by simply
harvesting a bit more Sun power. Like just about everything to do
with evolution, there is no 'direction' and there is no necessary
trend to higher 'order.' Evolution leads to improved fitness. That's
it; not improved order, or, sadly, improved intelligence in the
current populace.

[Paul J Gans]

Can you explain why the gorbus isn't disfrazzled when the
air conditioner is turned on?

I'll bet not. And the question doesn't even involve college
level physics.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[jonathan]

"Bill" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:462b3d4a-8d5c-43b9...@v3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...

This is an ng about biological evolution, I shouldn't have
to explain to people that an intelligent person displays
a higher level of evolved order than a rock, a microbe
or a plant and so on.

But order in the obvious meaning of the word, in terms
of the ...output side, the behavior, much like explained
here.


Model of hierarchical complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_Hierarchical_Complexity

[jonathan]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:knm6p9$8pa$2...@reader1.panix.com...

That's not an answer to my question either. It's amazing how
the objectively inclined utterly refuse to address this central
question about the behavior of evolutionary processes.

Does your faq answer this question? If so could you point
me there?

[jonathan]

"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1posp8lturbl6irs2...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:32:00 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On May 23, 12:46 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>>
>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
> .
>
>>I answered this question several times. Here it is again: evolution,
>>like every other process, has a long term trend of producing less
>>order over time. Do you get it this time? Sheesh...
>
> In fairness (although certainly not justified for this poster) you
> should specify thermodynamic "order" (or something else that is
> defined). Maybe you did that in a previous reply.

Evolution produces less order over time you say?

And the Friar doesn't take issue with that?
Incredible, just incredible that anyone could
look around the universe and the Earth and come
to that conclusion.

The Earth went from geology to what we see today
and the process responsible for most of that is called
Darwinian evolution. Yet you say this process
tends to do exactly the opposite of what happened.

So tell me, what mysterious force is responsible for
creating what we see IN SPITE of your disordering
process called Darwinism.



Jonathan


a

[jonathan]

"Kermit" <free...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:317d19dd-79a3-4dd0...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

Along these lines.

Model of hierarchical complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_Hierarchical_Complexity



>

> kermit
>

[Richard Norman]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:38:55 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It has been explained to you a very large number of times.

You do not define "order" in a quantitative fashion in order to tell
whether it increases, decreases or stays the same.

You do not define the region of the universe in which this "order" is
to be measured. Is it in a single organism? Is it in all living
things on earth" Is it on the entire earth? Is it in the entire
universe? If you intend "order" to have something to do with
thermodynamic entropy then you must first define exactly what that
relation is and then you must specify what region of the universe you
are measuring the entropy in. The term "evolution" does specify
anything about this.

[John Harshman]

I know you don't believe this, but words have meanings, and different
words have different meanings. You were asked for a definition of the
word "order" and you respond with what appears to be a characterization
of "complexity". Is it that you see no difference between the two words
and think they can be substituted freely, or that you didn't notice what
you had linked to?

[Richard Norman]

It is also true that the web page he cites has no information on
computing either "order" or "complexity" as a single number. Perhaps
one of the references does that but I don't choose to read through all
that stuff.

Jonathan, please give us a citation to a real mathematical computation
of "order" as a single number so that two systems can be directly
compared.

[Bill]

On May 24, 6:00�am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill" <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote in message

The wikipedia article does not explain how you would measure the order
of an organism, much less that of an ecosystem. It also talks a good
deal more about complexity than about order. I can't even tell if, in
your mind, complexity, order, and "evolved order" are the same thing,
much less how to measure them.

[Mark Isaak]

Wrong. It is a true, complete, and detailed answer to your question.

Obviously you do not want a true answer to your question. Perhaps if
you tell us what answer you want to hear, someone can echo it back so
you can go away.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/23/13 4:15 PM, jonathan wrote:
> "Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1posp8lturbl6irs2...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:32:00 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 23, 12:46 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>>>
>>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>

>>> I answered this question several times. Here it is again: evolution,
>>> like every other process, has a long term trend of producing less
>>> order over time. Do you get it this time? Sheesh...
>>
>> In fairness (although certainly not justified for this poster) you
>> should specify thermodynamic "order" (or something else that is
>> defined). Maybe you did that in a previous reply.
>
>
> Evolution produces less order over time you say?
>
> And the Friar doesn't take issue with that?
> Incredible, just incredible that anyone could
> look around the universe and the Earth and come
> to that conclusion.
>
> The Earth went from geology to what we see today
> and the process responsible for most of that is called
> Darwinian evolution. Yet you say this process
> tends to do exactly the opposite of what happened.
>
> So tell me, what mysterious force is responsible for
> creating what we see IN SPITE of your disordering
> process called Darwinism.

You would call it "Darwinism."

[Paul J Gans]

I don't have a FAQ. And I note that you either do understand
my question and duck answering it, or you don't understand
why your question can't be answered.

You use common terms in uncommon ways. You MUST define your
terms in order to have a conversation.

Of course if you don't want a conversation then don't bother.

[Paul J Gans]

Shouldn't there be a "not" in between "does" and "specify"?

[Paul J Gans]

Worse. Jonathan wants to quantitate those undefined terms.

[John Harshman]

You're being too kind. The wikipedia doesn't talk about order *at all*.
It uses the word "order", a lot, but not in the way Jonathan wants to;
it's used to mean "position in a sorted list".

[jonathan]

"John Bode" <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c32548c-80ff-4a9d...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> On May 23, 11:46 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>
>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>
>> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
>> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>>
>> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
>> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
>> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
>> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>>


>
> Okay, fine, here's a stand: assuming "order" in the good ol'
> thermodynamic sense, then the trend is obviously neutral.

Thanks for replying.

But entropy is for physical systems where disorder tends
to increase over time. Not for biological systems.
Life is always an open system, irreversible, and always
moving to or from equilibrium. Life has either static or
decreasing entropy.

So the question is which wins, The Second Law or
what is sometimes called The "Fourth' Law of
self organization?

> A
> prokaryote is no more or less thermodynamically ordered than a
> eukaryote. A trilobite would be no more or less ordered than a
> lobster. A dinosaur would be no more or less ordered than a bird.
>
> Plants are no more or less ordered than animals, which are no more or
> less ordered than fungi.

But a bird is less ordered than a flock. An individual less ordered
than a society, and a plant less ordered than an ecosystem.

The reason evolution or emergence wins the war with The Second Law
is that each new emergent level doesn't increase in capability linearly,
just adding one to the other. But each new emergent step, say from
single-celled to multi-celled, or animals to intelligence
increases the capability or effects on what existed before
by orders of magnitude.

Physical processes become disorded in a linear way, living systems
create order in a non-linear or exponential way.

Once life has reached a certain point, has fully filled it's specific niche
it becomes no contest at all between disorder and order.

Life wins in the end.



Jonathan




"Musicians wrestle everywhere
All day among the crowded air
I hear the silver strife
And waking long before the morn
Such transport breaks upon the town
I think it that "New Life"!

It is not Bird it has no nest
Nor "Band" in brass and scarlet drest
Nor Tamborin nor Man
It is not Hymn from pulpit read
The "Morning Stars" the Treble led
On Time's first Afternoon!

Some say it is "the Spheres" at play!
Some say that bright Majority
Of vanished Dames and Men!
Some think it service in the place
Where we with late celestial face
Please God shall Ascertain!"


By E Dickinson


s






..

[jonathan]

"Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message
news:knmbjd$id2$2...@dont-email.me...

You know what I meant..."don't wait for the translation"!

[jonathan]

"Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message

news:knmbd8$id2$1...@dont-email.me...

Don't be ridiculous.

>
> Obviously you do not want a true answer to your question.

I haven't gotten many answers, certainly no group concensus
has shown itself.

> Perhaps if you tell us what answer you want to hear, someone can echo it
> back so you can go away.

I'm not going away until this ng stands up and states
what they think the answer is, does evolution increase
or decrease order over time.

Let me try to be as plain as possible and list
some items relevent to evolutionary processes.
Will anyone place them properly in terms of their level
of evolved order, or capability to change/control
it's environment.

Chemicals, bacteria, stromatolites, animals, forests,
humans, societies, intelligence, wisdom.


Jonathan



s

[Richard Norman]

I believe you are correct.

The term "evolution" does NOT specify anything about the scope of what
is to be ordered.

Jonathan, here is an example. A refrigerator creates a region of
coldness. So you can cool off the entire kitchen just by running the
refrigerator with the door open, no? No. The region which is cooled
must be properly defined.

[Richard Norman]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:07:33 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I really was waiting for some hard core mathematics to justify your
arguments about order increasing linearly vs. exponentially. Then I
read the Dickinson piece which entirely explained it. However it
really doesn't properly cover just how many orders of magnitude. Are
we talking one or two, a couple hundreds, zillions? Just what would
that value be?

[jonathan]

"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:knmccu$189$1...@reader1.panix.com...

The only term in my question which can be defined in
different ways is of course 'order'. And I use words
as plainly and directly as possible. If I were using any
specific definition related to one kind of discipline or
another, I would have said so.


ORDER

transitive verb
1: to put in order : arrange
intransitive verb
1: to bring about order : regulate

Synonyms
arrange, array, classify, codify, dispose, draw up, lay out, marshal
(also marshall), organize, range, systematize

Antonyms
derange, disarrange, disarray, disorder, mess (up), muss (up),
rumple, upset

But if you insist on a specific definition, then
much like described here....

Model of hierarchical complexity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_Hierarchical_Complexity

Jonathan



"A Word dropped careless on a Page
May stimulate an eye
When folded in perpetual seam
The Wrinkled Maker lie

Infection in the sentence breeds
We may inhale Despair
At distances of Centuries
From the Malaria"



By E Dickinson

[David Canzi]

jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> less order, neutral or more order over time?'

Which weighs more, an ounce of heavy cream or an ounce of light
cream?

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |

[RAM]

On May 23, 8:25�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:knmbd8$id2$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/23/13 4:06 PM, jonathan wrote:
> >> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >>news:knm6p9$8pa$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> >>> jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >>>> "Richard Norman" <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote in message

Chemicals followed by stromatolites, then bacteria, forests, animals,
intelligence, humans and yet to evolve wisdom.

Now that the task is done you may leave. And on the way out you can
thank me for being so perspicacious.

> Jonathan

[Dan Espen]

Last time you were here, I explained to you that order and complexity
were two different things.

On a molecular level, a diamond is more ordered than a cell.

But a cell is more complex than a diamond.

Are you are asking if evolution produces more complexity
over time?

--
Dan Espen

[Richard Norman]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:54:02 +0000 (UTC), "David Canzi"
<dmc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>
>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
>Which weighs more, an ounce of heavy cream or an ounce of light
>cream?

Actually one ounce of heavy cream is lighter in weight than one ounce
of light cream.

Seriously!

[Friar Broccoli]

Thermodynamic "order" is a measure of energy available to do work.

One of the effects of evolution is the existence of organisms that are
very efficient at converting available energy into work (movement,
digestion and the like). When work is done the energy *used* is not
destroyed but is less available for additional work. The more efficient
the conversion, the greater the loss. That loss is measured as
thermodynamic disorder. So one of the side effects of evolution is
greater thermodynamic disorder.

Presumably you want to discuss some other type of "order". That's fine.
All that people here are asking is that you tell us what type of order
you want to talk about and *PRECISELY* how you measure it. Vague
handwaving analogies between say people and rocks won't do.

Measuring "order" objectively is not as easy as intuition suggests. In
the past I've asked you to tell me which contains more information:
- the marbled lungfish with a genome containing 130 billion base pairs
of DNA or
- the puffer fish with only 0.4 billion base pairs.
You didn't reply. Why?

Can you tell me now which one is more "ordered"?

[Klaus Hellnick]

>"jonathan" wrote in message
>news:dNWdncEJ3ZGcBwPM...@giganews.com...
>
>"Klaus Hellnick" <khel...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:knlprb$2b2$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> You have been answered several times. Apparently, you are too damned
>> stupid
>> to understand the answers.
>
>
>You're wrong, all the answers before were much like the
>ones I just now received. Either unresponsive, insulting or
>just plain idiotic.
>
>But maybe I missed an answer or two, could you repeat those
>answers for me? What is the ng consensus?

Neither of my points was wrong.
The consensus is that thermodynamic order is decreased.
If you meant something else by "order", you should have clearly defined it,
like several people (including me) have requested.
Klaus

[William Morse]

As Richard Norman has pointed out, there have been several answers given
to your question. Loosely interpreted, overly simplified, and subject to
their clarification, I have said that evolution produces more order,
Richard Norman and John Harshman have said that evolution is neutral And
all of us have given arguments addressing "this central question". Have
you not read what we wrote?

[jonathan]

"air" <airbo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44a3488b-f7fb-4e09...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

> On 23 May, 12:46, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>
>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>
>> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
>> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>>
>> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
>> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
>> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
>> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>

>> "What mystery pervades a well!
>> The water lives so far,
>> Like neighbor from another world
>> Residing in a jar.
>>
>> The grass does not appear afraid;
>> I often wonder he
>> Can stand so close and look so bold
>> At what is dread to me.
>>
>> Related somehow they may be,-
>> The sedge stands next the sea,
>> Where he is floorless, yet of fear
>> No evidence gives he.
>>
>> But nature is a stranger yet;
>> The ones that cite her most
>> Have never passed her haunted house,
>> Nor simplified her ghost.
>>
>> To pity those that know her not
>> Is helped by the regret
>> That those who know her, know her less
>> The nearer her they get."
>>
>> By E Dickinson.
>>
>> s
>

> OK, I'll take a stab-
>
> Let's assume that by 'order' you mean the thing that the 2nd law of
> thermodynamics helps us keep track of. (apologies to all of those
> actually educated in thermo). The Universe is running down - the
> 'order' declines over time and over the whole universe. Current
> thinking is that in bazillions of years the observable space in which
> we reside will be dark, empty and extremely boring. I call that
> running down.


Thanks for replying, and the above would nicely characterize
how physical systems evolve over time.



>
> Locally (meaning at the scale of our solar system), the Sun is running
> down - slowly burning up its nuclear fuel until in a couple of billion
> years it will bloat into a red giant and collapse to a white dwarf
> (google main sequence stars for details). I can hardly wait.
>
> Very locally (meaning on Earth) some things are running down (like
> radioactive elements in the Earth's core).


I'm glad you broke it down in terms of short and long
range order/disorder. In physical systems this would
translate into the level of correlation in many variable
systems over different spans.

So we should characterize the way physical systems, such
as radioactive elements you mentioned, decay. They do so
stochastically, which would be random but a relatively
constant rate of decay.

A linear rate of becoming disordered, so to speak, for
physical systems.



>But lots of other things
> are not running down-they are happily harvesting the energy of the sun
> to do things like build internets and waste time on them. As long as
> the Sun provides the energy, it is possible to employ that energy to
> make things that are extremely 'orderly.'


Such as self organizing or evolving systems! And how should we
characterize the rate of change towards order for evolving systems?
Gravity wells and fitness peaks share two key properties.
One, the higher the peak, the larger the area of attraction.
And two, peaks tend to clump together.
Which translates into a possibility landscape where any
random path is more likely to fall into the region of higher
gravity/fitness than a lower one.

Random paths at the local level, translates to hill-climbing
at the longer ranges.

And gravity, like the power law behavior of evolving systems
follow an inverse square law. Like gravity the 'correlation
decrease exponentially fast with distance/time etc.
Not at a constant rate as with physical systems.

So self organized behavior can be characterized as
exponential rates of change towards order, physical
systems as constant rates of decay towards disorder.

In a race between linear and exponential rates of change, the
winner is easy to see. Tortoise and hare. Exponential rates,
evolution and life!

We might move on to the next solar system long before
our sun dies for instance. The signs of life have moved out
some 70 light years from the sun, already!



>
> So- evolution can make things less orderly, can keep things about as
> orderly as they currently are, or make things more orderly by simply
> harvesting a bit more Sun power. Like just about everything to do
> with evolution, there is no 'direction' and there is no necessary
> trend to higher 'order.' Evolution leads to improved fitness. That's
> it; not improved order,


But a better solution, or more fitness, is a higher level of order
in itself.



> or, sadly, improved intelligence in the
> current populace.
>

The Internet is only proving my point, it 'sprung to life'
years ago and is laying waste to the established 'order'
as we speak. Just as most emergence does. Humanity
is evolving in front of our eyes from the collective power
and wisdom of increasingly interacting populations.

Go ahead, try to 'kill' the Internet and see what happens.
It'll squash you like a bug in seconds flat. While physical
systems become disordered, drip by drip, via the
Second Law.

No contest, life (evolution) wins hands down.


s

[William Morse]

Without going to the bother of looking it up, I assume you are talking
about the difference between ounce as a volume and ounce as a weight.
Which is just another good reason for the US to adopt the metric system.
I am still holding my breath for that one.

[David Canzi]

It depends what kind of ounce I was talking about. There is
more than one trick in the question.

[deadrat]

On 5/23/13 6:15 PM, jonathan wrote:
> "Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1posp8lturbl6irs2...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:32:00 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> On May 23, 12:46 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>>>
>>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>

>> .
>>
>>> I answered this question several times. Here it is again: evolution,
>>> like every other process, has a long term trend of producing less
>>> order over time. Do you get it this time? Sheesh...
>>
>> In fairness (although certainly not justified for this poster) you
>> should specify thermodynamic "order" (or something else that is
>> defined). Maybe you did that in a previous reply.
>
>

> Evolution produces less order over time you say?
>
> And the Friar doesn't take issue with that?
> Incredible, just incredible that anyone could
> look around the universe and the Earth and come
> to that conclusion.
>
> The Earth went from geology to what we see today
> and the process responsible for most of that is called
> Darwinian evolution. Yet you say this process
> tends to do exactly the opposite of what happened.
>
> So tell me, what mysterious force is responsible for
> creating what we see IN SPITE of your disordering
> process called Darwinism.
>
>
>

> Jonathan

Back when I was in college (and this was roughly around the time when
the Four Humour Theory of bodily operations was first coming into some
dispute), a friend of mine got mightily stoned and wrote a paper for a
class he detested. As I recall, he managed to insert his opinions of
the professor's choice of syllabus, command of the subject, pedagogical
style, and son on. The paper came back with a middling-poor grade and
one comment:

"A silent fool will be tolerated; a vituperative one will be scorned by
ten thousand furies."

I urge you to take this maxim to heart. You have earned your fair share
of scorn in this thread, and if hasn't arisen to the level of a myriad
of the Eumenides, it's because by comparison to other fools here, you're
not that vituperative.

But you're not silent either, as would befit someone who needs to spend
time studying a subject before expounding on it.

Your question is akin to asking, "If drunks stagger about randomly, how
come they always seem to end up in the street and under the wheels of
oncoming vehicles? What mysterious force is responsible for creating
this mayhem IN SPITE of the randomizing influence of alcohol on ambulation?"

The answer is that there is no mysterious force. It's just that the
paths available to the walking inebriated are into the street. The
other paths away from the street wold require walking through buildings.
Evolution is change sieved through the exigencies of the environment.
The changes are random; the sieve is not. As life started out
unicellular and "simple," there were more paths from the simplest
possible to the more "complex."

I'll use the scare quotes until you actually define what you mean in an
operational (i.e., measurable) way.

But it isn't about the complexity, it's about the adaptation. When life
became sufficiently complicated, there were enough adaptive paths back
to simplicity. Parasites often lose functionality of their own as they
adapt to take the lost capability from their hosts. Animals in a
lightless environment lose the complexity of sight.

What's the "long term trend" in the average over time and populations?

Why is that important?

[Rolf Aalberg]

In the short term, i.e. in the overseeable future of mankind, we need
not worry about that. Order vs. non-order simply is not a relevant issue.

However, what we know for certain, i.e as far as science has been able
to establish, the arrow of time points in a direction of increasing
entropy in the universe as a whole. Furthermore, we know of nothing that
can reverse entropy, it is proceeding without pause.

But we also observe a great deal of order and complexity in nature. That
is because there are huge amounts of energy available to power all kinds
of reactions, physical and chemical processes.

Just think of the enormous amounts of energy pouring from the sun! I
believe 4 tons of matter is converted into energy every second the sun
is burning, and it will continue doing that for several billion more
years yet.

Does that answer your problem? Or what, actually, are your reasons for
asking that specific question? Are you ready to go away now?

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:07:33 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>

Ok, in this specific post you have associated order with organization.
Logically, a set which contains multiple instances of X can be
considered to be necessarily more organized, and therefore more
ordered, than X itself.

I see at least three problems with your argument. First, the set of
living things is included in the set of all things, ie the Universe,
and so by the argument above, the Universe must be more ordered than
living things. The Universe wins!

Second, your argument describes the next layer of organization as
including only multiple copies of the previous layer. In reality, the
next layer can and usually does contain other items, from different
levels of organization and order. Using your examples, a society is
more than a collection of individuals, but also the physical
structures that society builds, and an ecosystem is more than a
collection of plants, but also the animals which feed on the plants.

And each item within a larger organization can change its own order
independently; the individuals within a society can become more or
less ordered independently of that society's physical structures, and
vice versa. Alternately, each item can increase its order only by the
reduction of order of other items; the animals in an ecosystem can
increase their order only by eating, and so reducing, the order of
plants. So one can't assume that increasing the order of one item
necessarily increases the order of the larger organization of which
it's a part.

The latter case above describes the actual relationship of living
things to the larger Universe; living things increase their order only
at the expense of the larger Universe. Ultimately, as the larger
Universe winds down, so too must living things. So, tying back to
your original question, life may appear to win the order battle in the
short term, but ultimately, the Universe will win the war and drag
life down with it into disorder.

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:46:02 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> less order, neutral or more order over time?'

What is "order"?

Steve

--
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

[Rolf Aalberg]

Define 'life'. Life can mean so many things, and life (on Earth) will
come to an end when the Earth no longer can sustain life.

"Life wins" is a meaningless statement in that respect.

[Rolf Aalberg]

jonathan wrote:
> "Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1posp8lturbl6irs2...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:32:00 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

>>> On May 23, 12:46 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>>>
>>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>

>> .
>>
>>> I answered this question several times. Here it is again: evolution,
>>> like every other process, has a long term trend of producing less
>>> order over time. Do you get it this time? Sheesh...
>>
>> In fairness (although certainly not justified for this poster) you
>> should specify thermodynamic "order" (or something else that is
>> defined). Maybe you did that in a previous reply.
>
>
> Evolution produces less order over time you say?
>
> And the Friar doesn't take issue with that?
> Incredible, just incredible that anyone could
> look around the universe and the Earth and come
> to that conclusion.
>
> The Earth went from geology to what we see today
> and the process responsible for most of that is called
> Darwinian evolution. Yet you say this process
> tends to do exactly the opposite of what happened.
>
> So tell me, what mysterious force is responsible for
> creating what we see IN SPITE of your disordering
> process called Darwinism.
>
>

No mysterious force, just the forces of nature, plain and simple.

We know that life works, don't we?

We don't know how it started in an way that we can say "Look there,
that's how and where life began."

But we know that life did begin, don't we? We are not bothered by that
fact, we accept the fact. That life continues after it has begun is no
strange phenomenon, we see it happening every day, year in year out.



>
> Jonathan
>
>
> a

[Rolf Aalberg]

jonathan wrote:
> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>

You seem to have a preoccupation with 'order'. Why is that so important
to you? There is a lot of order in the universe. Among other things, it
has galaxies, solar systems, planets and moons, black holes - There is
so very much going on all over the universe even if you dismiss and
ignore anything resembling life. The existence of life is irrelevant for
all of that.

As long as energy is freely available in huge quantities, anything
possible within the constraints of "Natural Laws" tends to happen.

We know there is life here and it stands a good chance of continuing to
be here as long as the sun provide the energy. Photosynthesis is the
main source, using the power of sunshine to build nutrients for life.

Another source of life-sustaining energy is of course the Earth itself;
the thermal vents/black smokers we find at the bottom of the oceans.

So what's your problem?

I believe you need to make a systematic study of physics and chemistry
before delving into biology.

I wonder WHY you keep asking the same questions over and over?

I suggest looking at the facts that we do have, they explain a lot.

> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>
> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>
>
>
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

jonathan wrote:
> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> less order, neutral or more order over time?'

Evolution, by and of itself hardly is an issue wrt order/disorder.

Consider all, and I mean all the chemistry going on in all of life, all
over the planet, all of the time. What little of that effort is relevant
for evolutionary changes in biology is but a minute fraction of that.
Life could and would proceed without evolution - but the same mechanism
responsible for evolution being possible also is at work all the time
without causing evolution.

Evolution is an effect of life's tendency to self-correction, to
preserve the ability to survive by taking care of genomes.

For animals, sexual reproduction is a mechanism actively acting to
'create' genomes 'fit for fight'. It can be viewed as a waste of energy,
but the benefits outweigh that expense.

[Richard Norman]

The standard joke is between an ounce of gold and an ounce of
feathers. That involves yet a different pair of "ounces".

There is no longer a metric system. But if we switch to SI we get all
hung up on the difference between ounce as a weight and gram as a
mass, two very different concepts.

[Arkalen]

On 23/05/13 17:46, jonathan wrote:
> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>

You have gotten an answer, several times. It's "neutral", for what we
can guess your meaning is by "order".
If you don't like that answer then the solution is to explain precisely
what your definition of "order" is (and "trend" for that matter) and
demonstrate that evolution shows an overall trend for it. It's not to
ask the same question ten times, ignoring the answer you get each time.

[Friar Broccoli]

[Burkhard]

On 24 May, 13:14, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 00:12:44 -0400, William Morse
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On 05/23/2013 10:00 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:54:02 +0000 (UTC), "David Canzi"

> >> <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> �wrote:

>
> >>> jonathan<wr...@gmail.com> �wrote:
>
> >>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> >>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> >>>> � �'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> >>>> � �less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
> >>> Which weighs more, an ounce of heavy cream or an ounce of light
> >>> cream?
>
> >> Actually one ounce of heavy cream is lighter in weight than one ounce
> >> of light cream.
>
> >> Seriously!
>
> >Without going to the bother of looking it up, I assume you are talking
> >about the difference between ounce as a volume and ounce as a weight.
> >Which is just another good reason for the US to adopt the metric system.
> >I am still holding my breath for that one.
>
> The standard joke is between an ounce of gold and an ounce of
> feathers. �That involves yet a different pair of "ounces".

As long as you are not pounced by an ounce, which I think is very
painful, unless your hide is several ounces thick...

[Rolf Aalberg]

jonathan wrote:
> "Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:rbksp89s5up4tfd2v...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:06:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill
>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>> On May 23, 11:46 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>>>
>>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>>>

>>>> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
>>>> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>>>>
>>>> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
>>>> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
>>>> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
>>>> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>

>>> Until you explain what you mean by order and how you would measure it,
>>> the answer has to be "I don't know," because your question is not
>>> specific enough to have a clear answer.
>>>
>>
>> Also he totally ignores substantial discussion about evolution and
>> "complexity" or evolution and "direction"
>
>
>
> That's not an answer to my question.
>
>

Without a thorough analysis of the question, my first response would be
"Those subjects may have an impact of how the question is framed." With
sufficient, or maybe alternative knowledge one might have asked a
different question, or not asked a question at all?


>
>>
>
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

jonathan wrote:
> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>
> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>
>

As the saying goes (not to imply it applies to you - but I wouldn't know):

http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/A_fool_may_ask_more_questions_in_an_hour_than_a_wise_man_can_answer_in_seven_years/229273/


>
>
> Jonathan

[Will in New Haven]

On May 23, 7:00�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill" <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:462b3d4a-8d5c-43b9...@v3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 11:46 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> >> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> >> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> >> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
> >> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
> >> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>
> >> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
> >> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
> >> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
> >> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>

> >> Jonathan
>
> > Until you explain what you mean by order and how you would measure it,
> > the answer has to be "I don't know," because your question is not
> > specific enough to have a clear answer.
>

> This is an ng about biological evolution, I shouldn't have
> to explain to people that an intelligent person displays
> a higher level of evolved order than a rock, a microbe
> or a plant and so on.

When you are that wrong you really ought to explain yourself. There is
no such quality as "evolved order."

--
Will in New Haven

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/23/13 6:25 PM, jonathan wrote:
> [...]

> Let me try to be as plain as possible and list
> some items relevent to evolutionary processes.
> Will anyone place them properly in terms of their level
> of evolved order, or capability to change/control
> it's environment.
>
> Chemicals, bacteria, stromatolites, animals, forests,
> humans, societies, intelligence, wisdom.

Okay, I'll play. In terms of level of evolved order[*], highest to lowest:
societies / forests;
animals / humans;
stromatolites;
intelligence;
bacteria;
chemicals;
wisdom.

In terms of capability to change/control it's environment (again,
highest to lowest):
societies;
humans;
bacteria;
forests;
animals;
intelligence;
stromatolites;
chemicals / wisdom.

[*] "Order" is defined as I believe you wish it to be, as an intuitive
understanding of arrangement and complexity. Since my ordering of the
first list is based purely on my intuition, it is authoritative and
unarguable. The ordering for capacity to control, however, is based
only on my intuition, so there is plenty of room to disagree.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/23/13 6:11 PM, jonathan wrote:
> "Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message

> news:knmbjd$id2$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/23/13 4:15 PM, jonathan wrote:
>>> [...]

>>> So tell me, what mysterious force is responsible for
>>> creating what we see IN SPITE of your disordering
>>> process called Darwinism.
>>

>> You would call it "Darwinism."
>
>
> You know what I meant..."don't wait for the translation"!

I think you misunderstand. My point is that the ordering process and
the disordering process are one and the same. Or rather, they are both
aspects of the same process of evolution.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:34:45 +0100, in article
<6Wu*EE...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Arkalen stated..."

>
>On 23/05/13 17:46, jonathan wrote:
>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>
>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>
>> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
>> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>>
>> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
>> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
>> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
>> to the world view of the objectively trained.

[...snip...]

>You have gotten an answer, several times. It's "neutral", for what we
>can guess your meaning is by "order".
>If you don't like that answer then the solution is to explain precisely
>what your definition of "order" is (and "trend" for that matter) and
>demonstrate that evolution shows an overall trend for it. It's not to
>ask the same question ten times, ignoring the answer you get each time.

For example, if someone were to ask: 'Do chemical reactions have a

long term trend of producing less order, neutral or more order over

time?" What answer would one expect from a chemist?

One reasonable response would be: "I don't understand what possible
connection you have in mind when you are talking about long term
trends for order with respect to chemical reactions." Likewise for
"long term trends" of planets orbiting the Sun or refraction of light
or many other natural processes.)

But us "evolutionists", we're used to creationists not having clear
concepts (they, after all, can't even tell us what their alternative
to evolution is) and we tend to get lazy about forever asking, "What
are you talking about?" So:

Does evolution have a long term trend of producing less order,
neutral or more order over time?

No.


--
---Tom S.

[John Bode]

On May 23, 8:07�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "John Bode" <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0c32548c-80ff-4a9d...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 23, 11:46 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> >> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> >> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> >> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
> >> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
> >> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>
> >> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
> >> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
> >> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
> >> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>

> > Okay, fine, here's a stand: assuming "order" in the good ol'
> > thermodynamic sense, then the trend is obviously neutral.
>
> Thanks for replying.
>
> But entropy is for physical systems where disorder tends
> to increase over time. Not for biological systems.

Biological systems *are* physical systems.

> Life is always an open system, irreversible, and always
> moving to or from equilibrium. �Life has either static or
> decreasing entropy.

Because living things *do work* to decrease their local entropy (at
the cost of increasing entropy globally). At least until they die, at
which point they go to equilibrium.

>
> So the question is which wins, The Second Law or
> what is sometimes called The "Fourth' Law of
> self organization?
>
> > A
> > prokaryote is no more or less thermodynamically ordered than a
> > eukaryote. �A trilobite would be no more or less ordered than a
> > lobster. �A dinosaur would be no more or less ordered than a bird.
>
> > Plants are no more or less ordered than animals, which are no more or
> > less ordered than fungi.
>
> But a bird is less ordered than a flock.

Thermodynamically so?

> An individual less ordered
> than a society, and a plant less ordered than an ecosystem.
>

And this is why we kept asking for definitions of what you meant by
"ordered". Since you didn't really specify what you meant, I went with
a limited, thermodynamic interpretation focusing on individual
organisms.

Clearly, that's not what you meant; had you said so to begin with, we
could have avoided no small measure of confusion.

> The reason evolution or emergence wins the war with The Second Law

*Nothing* wins the war with the 2LoT. Nothing. In the end,
everything will go to equilibrium. We (as living organisms) do work
to decrease entropy locally at the cost of increasing entropy
globally, but all living things die, and eventually *all* living
things on Earth *will* be dead, and thus will move towards
equilibrium.

> is that each new emergent level doesn't increase in capability linearly,
> just adding one to the other. But each new emergent step, say from
> single-celled to multi-celled, or animals to intelligence
> increases the capability or effects on what existed before
> by orders of magnitude.
>
> Physical processes become disorded in a linear way, living systems
> create order in a non-linear or exponential way.

I'd like to see the math on that.

>
> Once life has reached a certain point, has fully filled it's specific niche
> it becomes no contest at all between disorder and order.
>
> Life wins in the end.
>

Until it doesn't.

[wiki trix]

On May 23, 6:36�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Klaus Hellnick" <khelln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

>
> news:knlprb$2b2$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> > You have been answered several times. Apparently, you are too damned
> > stupid
> > to understand the answers.
>
> You're wrong, all the answers before were much like the
> ones I just now received. Either unresponsive, insulting or
> just plain idiotic.

I answered this question several times. My answer was not
"unresponsive", "insulting" nor " plain idiotic". And you never seem
to deal with it. Here it is one more time: evolution, like every
other process, has a long term trend of producing less
order over time". So you have the answer. Do you understand it?

> But maybe I missed an answer or two, could you repeat those
> answers for me?

You miss it over and over again. You are obviously a total idiot...
Just deal with the answer you were given.

> What is the ng consensus?

Why would that matter? Science is not about consensus.

[Paul J Gans]

Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 May 2013 00:32:33 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>>Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 18:38:55 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>

>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:rbksp89s5up4tfd2v...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:06:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill
>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>>On May 23, 11:46 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>>>>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>>>>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
>>>>>>> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
>>>>>>> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
>>>>>>> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
>>>>>>> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Until you explain what you mean by order and how you would measure it,
>>>>>>the answer has to be "I don't know," because your question is not
>>>>>>specific enough to have a clear answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> Also he totally ignores substantial discussion about evolution and
>>>>> "complexity" or evolution and "direction"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's not an answer to my question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>

>>>It has been explained to you a very large number of times.
>>
>>>You do not define "order" in a quantitative fashion in order to tell
>>>whether it increases, decreases or stays the same.
>>
>>>You do not define the region of the universe in which this "order" is
>>>to be measured. Is it in a single organism? Is it in all living
>>>things on earth" Is it on the entire earth? Is it in the entire
>>>universe? If you intend "order" to have something to do with
>>>thermodynamic entropy then you must first define exactly what that
>>>relation is and then you must specify what region of the universe you
>>>are measuring the entropy in. The term "evolution" does specify
>>>anything about this.
>>
>>Shouldn't there be a "not" in between "does" and "specify"?

>I believe you are correct.

>The term "evolution" does NOT specify anything about the scope of what
>is to be ordered.

>Jonathan, here is an example. A refrigerator creates a region of
>coldness. So you can cool off the entire kitchen just by running the
>refrigerator with the door open, no? No. The region which is cooled
>must be properly defined.

Not in Jonathan's view. You are creating a complexity. And
complexity analysis shows that there's no dissing order. All
sorts of results are possible, depending on where the strange
repellers are located. And your electric bill will vary. And
that's why none of you folks can answer his questions.

Besides that, he's a troll.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:knmccu$189$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>news:knm6p9$8pa$2...@reader1.panix.com...

>>>> jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:rbksp89s5up4tfd2v...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:06:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill
>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On May 23, 11:46 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>>>>>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>>>>>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
>>>>>>>> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
>>>>>>>> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
>>>>>>>> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
>>>>>>>> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Until you explain what you mean by order and how you would measure it,
>>>>>>>the answer has to be "I don't know," because your question is not
>>>>>>>specific enough to have a clear answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also he totally ignores substantial discussion about evolution and
>>>>>> "complexity" or evolution and "direction"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That's not an answer to my question.
>>>>

>>>> Can you explain why the gorbus isn't disfrazzled when the
>>>> air conditioner is turned on?
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet not. And the question doesn't even involve college
>>>> level physics.
>>
>>
>>

>>>That's not an answer to my question either. It's amazing how
>>>the objectively inclined utterly refuse to address this central
>>>question about the behavior of evolutionary processes.
>>

>>>Does your faq answer this question? If so could you point
>>>me there?
>>
>> I don't have a FAQ. And I note that you either do understand
>> my question and duck answering it, or you don't understand
>> why your question can't be answered.
>>
>> You use common terms in uncommon ways. You MUST define your
>> terms in order to have a conversation.
>>
>> Of course if you don't want a conversation then don't bother.


>The only term in my question which can be defined in
>different ways is of course 'order'. And I use words
>as plainly and directly as possible. If I were using any
>specific definition related to one kind of discipline or
>another, I would have said so.


>ORDER

>transitive verb
>1: to put in order : arrange
>intransitive verb
>1: to bring about order : regulate

>Synonyms
>arrange, array, classify, codify, dispose, draw up, lay out, marshal
>(also marshall), organize, range, systematize

>Antonyms
>derange, disarrange, disarray, disorder, mess (up), muss (up),
>rumple, upset

>But if you insist on a specific definition, then
>much like described here....

>Model of hierarchical complexity
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_of_Hierarchical_Complexity

Great! That's exactly NOT the way the term is used in science,
especially in thermodynamics (i.e. entropy).

You are a failed troll. What that means for your economic future
is beyond my foretelling, but I'm sure it will be serious.

So you are reduced to a gas bag, flatulating in the wind.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:00:41 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richard Norman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

>On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:54:02 +0000 (UTC), "David Canzi"

><dmc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>>jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>>has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>>
>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>

>>Which weighs more, an ounce of heavy cream or an ounce of light
>>cream?
>
>Actually one ounce of heavy cream is lighter in weight than one ounce
>of light cream.

Not necessarily. As is the case with jonathan's questions
regarding "order", this depends on the intended meaning of
"ounce".

>Seriously!

Yes, seriously.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:56:05 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Stephen Wolstenholme
<eas...@googlemail.com>:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:46:02 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
>What is "order"?

He has yet to answer that, except to refer repeatedly to a
Wiki article which is not about order, but complexity; he
seems to think the terms are interchangeable.

[hersheyh]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 6:39:33 PM UTC-4, air wrote:

> On 23 May, 12:46, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>
> > has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> >
>

> > � �'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing

>
> > � �less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
> >
>

> > The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
>
> > If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>
> >
>
> > I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
>
> > because the implications of extrapolating that trend
>
> > into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
>
> > to the world view of the objectively trained.
>
> >
>
> > Jonathan
>
> >
>

> > � � �"What mystery pervades a well!

>
> > � � � � The water lives so far,
>
> > � � � Like neighbor from another world
>
> > � � � � Residing in a jar.
>
> >
>
> > � � � The grass does not appear afraid;
>
> > � � � � I often wonder he
>
> > � � � Can stand so close and look so bold
>
> > � � � � At what is dread to me.
>
> >
>
> > � � � Related somehow they may be,-
>
> > � � � � The sedge stands next the sea,
>
> > � � � Where he is floorless, yet of fear
>
> > � � � � No evidence gives he.
>
> >
>
> > � � � But nature is a stranger yet;
>
> > � � � � The ones that cite her most
>
> > � � � Have never passed her haunted house,
>
> > � � � � Nor simplified her ghost.
>
> >
>
> > � � � To pity those that know her not
>
> > � � � � Is helped by the regret
>
> > � � � That those who know her, know her less
>
> > � � � � The nearer her they get."
>
> >
>
> > By E Dickinson.
>
> >
>
> > s
>
>
>

> OK, I'll take a stab-
>
>
>
> Let's assume that by 'order' you mean the thing that the 2nd law of
>
> thermodynamics helps us keep track of. (apologies to all of those
>
> actually educated in thermo). The Universe is running down - the
>
> 'order' declines over time and over the whole universe. Current
>
> thinking is that in bazillions of years the observable space in which
>
> we reside will be dark, empty and extremely boring. I call that
>
> running down.
>
>
>
> Locally (meaning at the scale of our solar system), the Sun is running
>
> down - slowly burning up its nuclear fuel until in a couple of billion
>
> years it will bloat into a red giant and collapse to a white dwarf
>
> (google main sequence stars for details). I can hardly wait.
>
>
>
> Very locally (meaning on Earth) some things are running down (like
>
> radioactive elements in the Earth's core). But lots of other things
>
> are not running down-they are happily harvesting the energy of the sun
>
> to do things like build internets and waste time on them. As long as
>
> the Sun provides the energy, it is possible to employ that energy to
>
> make things that are extremely 'orderly.'
>
>
>
> So- evolution can make things less orderly, can keep things about as
>
> orderly as they currently are, or make things more orderly by simply
>
> harvesting a bit more Sun power. Like just about everything to do
>
> with evolution, there is no 'direction' and there is no necessary
>
> trend to higher 'order.' Evolution leads to improved fitness. That's
>
> it; not improved order, or, sadly, improved intelligence in the
>
> current populace.

Further, on the assumption that he really means 'complexity' rather than
'order', evolutionary processes do not favor 'complexity' over 'simplicity'.
In some ecological niches, greater 'complexity' is favored for some features.
In others, less 'complexity' is favored (e.g. parasites, although some
parasitic features are more complex) for some features. Previous
complexity can most certainly be lost.

He is a bit confused because in the overall history of the earth there has
been a modest (actually quite small) *net* size (and, in his mind, thus
complexity) of organisms after the 'invention' of multicellularity with
some cells specialized for reproduction and others specialized for other
purposes that assist the reproductive cells. Beyond that there has been
the occasional new 'tissue' or 'organ' (as well as the loss thereof). But most
of that is quite modest change in the far tail end of a skewed curve (skewed
toward simpler organisms) because there are some open niches there.

[Paul J Gans]

William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 05/23/2013 10:00 PM, Richard Norman wrote:

>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:54:02 +0000 (UTC), "David Canzi"
>> <dmc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>

>>> jonathan<wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>>>
>>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>>

>>> Which weighs more, an ounce of heavy cream or an ounce of light
>>> cream?
>>
>> Actually one ounce of heavy cream is lighter in weight than one ounce
>> of light cream.
>>

>> Seriously!
>>
>Without going to the bother of looking it up, I assume you are talking
>about the difference between ounce as a volume and ounce as a weight.
>Which is just another good reason for the US to adopt the metric system.
>I am still holding my breath for that one.

Don't. We all know that the metric system is the work of the
devil tainted fascist socialist communistic democrats, the immoral
frenchmen, and gays everywhere.

If God had wanted us to go metric, He'd have given us 10 fingers,
not 12.

Oh wait.

Never mind.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:10:18 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
<eli...@gmail.com>:

I'll second the nomination.

[jillery]

Yeppers. Nothing beats 2LoT.

[deadrat]

On 5/24/13 12:57 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:10:18 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
> <eli...@gmail.com>:
>
> I'll second the nomination.

Thanks, but let me note my complete lack of originality. The drunkard's
walk into the street isn't mine. I think it's Gould's, and I should
have noted that in my original post. Does mentioning the Furies make up
for that?

<snip/>

[Charles Brenner]

On May 24, 1:36�pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> On 5/24/13 12:57 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:10:18 -0400, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli

> > <elia...@gmail.com>:

>
> > I'll second the nomination.
>
> Thanks, but let me note my complete lack of originality. �The drunkard's
> walk into the street isn't mine. �I think it's Gould's, and I should
> have noted that in my original post. �Does mentioning the Furies make up
> for that?
>
> <snip/>

It was a good post even considering only the serious part.

As for the furies, I am guessing without great confidence that you
mean properly attributing one borrowing might compensate for failing
to attribute another. Anyway, the drunkard story was worth borrowing.

[David Canzi]

jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> less order, neutral or more order over time?'

Is order intensive or extensive?

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |

[Friar Broccoli]

I've seen versions of the drunkard's walk at least a dozen times, and
would have seen it many more times if I read more than a tiny fraction
of the posts here.

I've also seen that same point made in completely different ways dozens
of times - Richard Norman did it at least once within the last 3 weeks.

I nominated your post because the writing was entertaining and the point
was made clearly and simply. You can understand that, Shirley?

[deadrat]

How'd you know my first name is Surely?

[Richard Norman]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:02:01 +0000 (UTC), "David Canzi"
<dmc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>
>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
>Is order intensive or extensive?

Is that the extent of your intent?

(Yes, I am aware of the thermodynamic definitions)

[jonathan]

"Rolf Aalberg" <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:knn7co$9sb$1...@news.albasani.net...

> jonathan wrote:
>> "Mark Isaak" <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in message

>> news:knmbd8$id2$1...@dont-email.me...

>>> On 5/23/13 4:06 PM, jonathan wrote:
>>>> "Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:knm6p9$8pa$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>>>>> jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:rbksp89s5up4tfd2v...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:06:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill
>>>>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On May 23, 11:46 pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>>>>>>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>>>>>>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
>>>>>>>>> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
>>>>>>>>> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
>>>>>>>>> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
>>>>>>>>> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until you explain what you mean by order and how you would measure
>>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>>> the answer has to be "I don't know," because your question is not
>>>>>>>> specific enough to have a clear answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also he totally ignores substantial discussion about evolution and
>>>>>>> "complexity" or evolution and "direction"
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not an answer to my question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you explain why the gorbus isn't disfrazzled when the
>>>>> air conditioner is turned on?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet not. And the question doesn't even involve college
>>>>> level physics.
>>>>
>>>> That's not an answer to my question either.
>>>

>>> Wrong. It is a true, complete, and detailed answer to your question.
>>
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Obviously you do not want a true answer to your question.
>>
>>
>> I haven't gotten many answers, certainly no group concensus
>> has shown itself.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps if you tell us what answer you want to hear, someone can echo it
>>> back so you can go away.
>>
>>
>> I'm not going away until this ng stands up and states
>> what they think the answer is, does evolution increase
>> or decrease order over time.
>>
>
> In the short term, i.e. in the overseeable future of mankind, we need not
> worry about that. Order vs. non-order simply is not a relevant issue.


Not a relevant issue? Evolutionary trends are not relevant?

I'm shocked at the mind set of objective thinking, the hard
cold truth about nature is that the ONLY thing which can
be determined with certainty is the most probable final state.
The precise path from here to there is what is truly
unknowable and unpredictable when it comes to
evolving systems.

You can't treat evolving systems as if it were a physical
system following a nice neat equation.



>
> However, what we know for certain, i.e as far as science has been able to
> establish, the arrow of time points in a direction of increasing entropy
> in the universe as a whole.


For physical systems that's true.


> Furthermore, we know of nothing that can reverse entropy, it is proceeding
> without pause.


Self organizing systems decrease entropy every day.
But entropy is a very poor way to measure systems
which thrive far from equilibrium, entropy is used for
physical systems, not biology



>
> But we also observe a great deal of order and complexity in nature. That
> is because there are huge amounts of energy available to power all kinds
> of reactions, physical and chemical processes.


Now there ya go, an energy gradient as the ultimate source
of evolution. I couldn't agree more. And the ultimate energy
gradient would be a singularity amidst a massive vacuum.
The evolutionary clock is wound tight right from the start
and the universe will go on evolving until it finally, way way
down the road, disperses. For it's entire life the universe
will evolve, physical and living systems, from a common
and inherent cause.


>
> Just think of the enormous amounts of energy pouring from the sun! I
> believe 4 tons of matter is converted into energy every second the sun is
> burning, and it will continue doing that for several billion more years
> yet.
>
> Does that answer your problem? Or what, actually, are your reasons for
> asking that specific question? Are you ready to go away now?


Of course I'm not going away. You don't seem to understand where
this should be going. With the new complexity sciences, science and
religion no longer need to be polar opposites.

There is only one set of truths about reality and nature, not two,
and until that divide goes away, we're all still living in the
Scientific Dark Ages.

We all laugh at the scientific follies of centuries ago, but what
will people a century from now think of us, still living in a time
when there is no unified view concerning Truth and Meaning.

This ng could develop a scientific philosophy that is consistent
with both science and religion of today. All it takes is to believe
in the truth and scope of Darwinian evolution more, a strong view
so to speak. Derived from the universal abstract template of complex
adaptive systems, expanding the concept of evolution to all
kinds of places and scales not before possible. From the physical
to living and even platonic realms.

It's that extra strong belief in evolution, that the universe inherently
and pervasively evolves, which unites science and religion
into a single common view. Where we realize that evolution is
God's plan, and allowed to play out, Darwin defines heaven.

Don't you see how reality works??????????

We stand on the ground created by the hopes and dreams
of those that came before. So what we dream and imagine today
can become our future.

Science shouldn't be about predicting the future, you can't.
Science should be about imagining the future we need and
want.

Science and meaning as one!


Jonathan




"I Died for beauty, but was scarce
Adjusted in the tomb,
When one who died for truth was lain
In an adjoining room.

He questioned softly why I failed?
"For beauty," I replied.
"And I for truth,-the two are one;
We brethren are," he said."

>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>>> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
>>> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the
>>> most
>>> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D.
>>> Hume
>>>
>>
>>
>

s

[Mike Painter]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 12:46:02 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>
>
>I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
>The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
>If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>
>I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
>because the implications of extrapolating that trend
>into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
>to the world view of the objectively trained.
>

Let me guess, you are going to surprise us with the second law of
Thermodynamics aren't you?
Wow, nobody saw that coming.

As long as we get heat from the sun order can increase, decrease or
remain neutral.

As for using the word "order" you will have to precisely define what
you mean by it in the context of evolution.

Once you have learned, rather than parroted the terms we can proceed?

[Mike Painter]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:54:02 +0000 (UTC), "David Canzi"
<dmc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>
>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>

>Which weighs more, an ounce of heavy cream or an ounce of light
>cream?

Now we know why so many are unwilling to move to the metric system.

[Paul J Gans]

David Canzi <dmc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>
>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'

>Is order intensive or extensive?

Offensive.

[Paul J Gans]

He did respond to this by posting a dictionary definition that
defined order as a ranking, as in first, second, or third.

He's clearly trolling. And boring. A decent troll should at
least be amusing.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 05/23/2013 12:46 PM, jonathan wrote:
> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.

I think it's partly your approach to the Group. You tend to be a tad
offputting to the local cognoscenti and fellow travelers by the manner
in which you present your arguments. If you dialed it down a bit people
might be more apt to engage you. If anything take Richard Norman and/or
Paul Gans seriously.

> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.

Though I have read and admired the works of Teilhard on progressive
evolutionism, I tend more towards Gould's views, especially those on
contingency. I'm not gonna hit you with a full Wilkins bibliographical
steamroller, but you should read (if you haven't already) Gould's
_Wonderful Life_ and _Full House_. They are *in toto* an antidote to the
progressivism you're pitching here (baseball metaphor). And Gould was
partial to a structuralist approach, unlike the evil simplistic genic
reductionist from Oxford ;-) You might find Gould informative.

> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
> to the world view of the objectively trained.

Gould's phrase "modal bacter". Nothing more needs to be said on the matter.

But looking backwards from where we're standing we do seem predestined.
The bacteria in your gut and on your skin beg to differ, but hey. We are
the oddballs.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

I don't think he is trolling. I think he is serious about his mindset,
though not tactical or tactful in the presentation. He could draw more
flies with honey than vinegar, but even more with bullshit. It's his call.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

Is he ordering us? Respect my authority (Eric Cartman).

I think Jonathan could be salvageable. I too have biased idiosyncrasies
about evolution. I have let my horns and tail recede long ago.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Richard Norman]

I agree, he is not trolling in the ordinary sense. He is a dedicated,
devout believer in a very distorted notion of complexity theory. That
and a fanatic about Emily Dickinson's poetry.

Complexity theory, properly applied with attention to the details of
the system under study, has an important and legitimate place in
science. Complexity theory totally misunderstood with only a few
concepts very roughly grasped is another thing. My analogy is the use
of algebra or the calculus which, properly applied with attention to
the details of the system under study, are indeed an enormously
important tools for quantitative work. However nobody claims that
algebra and the calculus are the be-all and end-all, the solution to
everything and that you don't need to know about the system; only
about the equations. Jonathan abuses the valuable tool of some
notions of mathematical analysis called "complexity theory" to believe
it is the answer to everything. Everything, that is, except "what is
7*6?"

[Paul J Gans]

You may be right. But he is enormously uneducated, throws terms
around that he doesn't understand, and refuses to treat anyone
seriously.

He's interacted with at least a dozen folks here, including you,
and shows no sign of paying any attention to what anyone says.

For instance, entropy is an interesting concept. But order
is far more confusing. For example (one I used in a response
to Jonathan), would a normal individual consider a fog "disordered"?
After all, it is smooth and uniform. But physically a fog is
very disordered. The concept of "order" is slippery.

[Paul J Gans]

Yes. But you are more than moderately intelligent and are
willing to discuss things with people.

[Paul J Gans]

There is also the problem that what is considered "complex"
varies from field to field.

For instance a multistep organic synthesis could be considered
simple or complex depending on the ease of performing the
individual steps. And while fewer steps make a synthesis generally
more "simple", even a very complicated one step synthesis could
be considered complex.

This is because there is, in chemistry, no quantitative way
of computing complexity.

As you well know, the situation in computing is rather different.
Often things such as the time complexity of an algorithm can be
found with some ease. Not so with a synthesis.

[William Morse]

On 05/24/2013 09:16 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> On 24 May, 13:14, Richard Norman<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 00:12:44 -0400, William Morse
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>> On 05/23/2013 10:00 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 01:54:02 +0000 (UTC), "David Canzi"

>>>> <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>> jonathan<wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>>>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>
>>>>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>>>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>

>>>>> Which weighs more, an ounce of heavy cream or an ounce of light
>>>>> cream?
>>

>>>> Actually one ounce of heavy cream is lighter in weight than one ounce
>>>> of light cream.
>>
>>>> Seriously!
>>
>>> Without going to the bother of looking it up, I assume you are talking
>>> about the difference between ounce as a volume and ounce as a weight.
>>> Which is just another good reason for the US to adopt the metric system.
>>> I am still holding my breath for that one.
>>

>> The standard joke is between an ounce of gold and an ounce of
>> feathers. That involves yet a different pair of "ounces".
>
> As long as you are not pounced by an ounce, which I think is very
> painful, unless your hide is several ounces thick...


Yeah, my wife had a close encounter with an ounce recently. She wasn't
hurt, but was so frightened she skipped work and lost pay. So they
docked her shekels but the ounce missed her hide.
>>
>> There is no longer a metric system. But if we switch to SI we get all
>> hung up on the difference between ounce as a weight and gram as a
>> mass, two very different concepts.
>
>

[Rolf Aalberg]

The future of life will take care of itself as long as we don't mess up
the planet. Do you have any ideas about what we must do, and why?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:06:46 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <a...@b.com>:

Wait... You didn't eat the fish, did you?

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:36:45 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <a...@b.com>:

Well... I suppose.

I'd note that even with proper attribution it would have
been a good post.

[Dana Tweedy]

On May 25, 11:49 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:06:46 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by deadrat <a...@b.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 5/24/13 4:09 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 15:36:45 -0500, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/24/13 12:57 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:10:18 -0400, the following appeared
> >>>> in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli

> >>>> <elia...@gmail.com>:

>
> >>>> I'll second the nomination.
>
> >>> Thanks, but let me note my complete lack of originality.  The drunkard's
> >>> walk into the street isn't mine.  I think it's Gould's, and I should
> >>> have noted that in my original post.  Does mentioning the Furies make up
> >>> for that?
>
> >> I've seen versions of the drunkard's walk at least a dozen times, and
> >> would have seen it many more times if I read more than a tiny fraction
> >> of the posts here.
>
> >> I've also seen that same point made in completely different ways dozens
> >> of times - Richard Norman did it at least once within the last 3 weeks.
>
> >> I nominated your post because the writing was entertaining and the point
> >> was made clearly and simply.   You can understand that, Shirley?
>
> >How'd you know my first name is Surely?
>
> Wait... You didn't eat the fish, did you?

No, he had the Lasagne.

DJT

(Good luck, we're all counting on you)

[Inez]

On May 23, 9:46 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>
>    'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>    less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>
> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.

Like others here, I don't really see how "order" is a measurable
quality with regards to life or evolution. You seem to be using it as
a synonym for "complexity" but that doesn't make much sense. The
contents of my sock drawer seems complex but not at all orderly, and I
couldn't assign a measured number to either of those concepts.

But to the extent that you presumably understand your own question, it
seems eminently answerable by yourself. Why ask here? If you have an
argument why don't you make it instead of trying to get people to walk
into your trap.

> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
> to the world view of the objectively trained.

I would say that because life started in its simplest possible form,
early in evolutionary history life tended to gain complexity as it
couldn't get simpler. At a certain point this growing complexity
trend slowed and probably stopped for all intents and purposes. Why?
Because simple systems are less likely to break than complicated ones
(they have less parts to break), for any given functionality simple
systems will tend to be better and selected for. I don't suspect a T
Rex was any more or less complex than a camel by any meaningful
measure.

I don't see any problem with projecting this into the past of future.
Can you tell me what that problem is?

[jonathan]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ss5up8pevc4cngjem...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:07:33 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Bode" <jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:0c32548c-80ff-4a9d...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

>>> On May 23, 11:46 am, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I've asked it many times and in different ways, and the response
>>>> has been well, ah...vaporous I guess would fit.
>>>>
>>>> 'Does evolution have a long term trend of producing
>>>> less order, neutral or more order over time?'
>>>>
>>>> The truth has to lie in there somewhere, where is it?
>>>> If the answer is "I don't know" at least admit that.
>>>>

>>>> I know why the folks here refuse to take a stand, it's
>>>> because the implications of extrapolating that trend
>>>> into the distant future or past is wholly unacceptable
>>>> to the world view of the objectively trained.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>

>>> Okay, fine, here's a stand: assuming "order" in the good ol'
>>> thermodynamic sense, then the trend is obviously neutral.
>>
>>
>>Thanks for replying.
>>
>>But entropy is for physical systems where disorder tends
>>to increase over time. Not for biological systems.

>>Life is always an open system, irreversible, and always
>>moving to or from equilibrium. Life has either static or
>>decreasing entropy.
>>

>>So the question is which wins, The Second Law or
>>what is sometimes called The "Fourth' Law of
>>self organization?
>>
>>
>>
>>> A
>>> prokaryote is no more or less thermodynamically ordered than a
>>> eukaryote. A trilobite would be no more or less ordered than a
>>> lobster. A dinosaur would be no more or less ordered than a bird.
>>>
>>> Plants are no more or less ordered than animals, which are no more or
>>> less ordered than fungi.
>>
>>

>>But a bird is less ordered than a flock. An individual less ordered

>>than a society, and a plant less ordered than an ecosystem.
>>

>>The reason evolution or emergence wins the war with The Second Law

>>is that each new emergent level doesn't increase in capability linearly,
>>just adding one to the other. But each new emergent step, say from
>>single-celled to multi-celled, or animals to intelligence
>>increases the capability or effects on what existed before
>>by orders of magnitude.
>>
>>Physical processes become disorded in a linear way, living systems
>>create order in a non-linear or exponential way.
>>

>>Once life has reached a certain point, has fully filled it's specific
>>niche
>>it becomes no contest at all between disorder and order.
>>
>>Life wins in the end.
>
>

> Ok, in this specific post you have associated order with organization.
> Logically, a set which contains multiple instances of X can be
> considered to be necessarily more organized, and therefore more
> ordered, than X itself.


But you're still looking at this from an objective or
input side, what things are. Not from how they behave
or their capabilities, a holistic view. From an objective
view you have a sliding scale of order from zero to
infinite, say.

But from a systems view, you have evolutionary emergence as the
result of the dynamic interaction between order and disorder.


>
> I see at least three problems with your argument. First, the set of
> living things is included in the set of all things, ie the Universe,
> and so by the argument above, the Universe must be more ordered than
> living things. The Universe wins!


But not from the view of emergence, life emerged from the physical
universe, so is far more complex and organized than the universe.



>
> Second, your argument describes the next layer of organization as
> including only multiple copies of the previous layer. In reality, the
> next layer can and usually does contain other items, from different
> levels of organization and order. Using your examples, a society is
> more than a collection of individuals, but also the physical
> structures that society builds, and an ecosystem is more than a
> collection of plants, but also the animals which feed on the plants.
>
> And each item within a larger organization can change its own order
> independently; the individuals within a society can become more or
> less ordered independently of that society's physical structures, and
> vice versa. Alternately, each item can increase its order only by the
> reduction of order of other items; the animals in an ecosystem can
> increase their order only by eating, and so reducing, the order of
> plants. So one can't assume that increasing the order of one item
> necessarily increases the order of the larger organization of which
> it's a part.
>
> The latter case above describes the actual relationship of living
> things to the larger Universe; living things increase their order only
> at the expense of the larger Universe.


Think of life as you would a black hole, an eddy or whirlwind.
A natural result of the physical universe, the proper balance of
order to disorder is certain to happen here and there, and
evolution emerges, out of thin air so to speak.



> Ultimately, as the larger
> Universe winds down, so too must living things. So, tying back to
> your original question, life may appear to win the order battle in the
> short term, but ultimately, the Universe will win the war and drag
> life down with it into disorder.



Or evolution is an inherent process, and emergence so pervasive
that the notion of an evolved life as far above us, as we are above
animals, is the normal and expected state of affairs. And if something
is almost certain to happen in the future, we can know with
enough certainty, that it happened in the past, as well.



s




>

[jillery]

On Sat, 25 May 2013 19:09:44 -0400, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Do you understand that my paragraph above is a paraphrase of what I
understand to be your POV?

>But from a systems view, you have evolutionary emergence as the
>result of the dynamic interaction between order and disorder.

I'll take the above as a "no".

>> I see at least three problems with your argument. First, the set of
>> living things is included in the set of all things, ie the Universe,
>> and so by the argument above, the Universe must be more ordered than
>> living things. The Universe wins!
>
>
>But not from the view of emergence, life emerged from the physical
>universe, so is far more complex and organized than the universe.

Non sequitur. Even if your conclusion is true, it doesn't follow from
your statement. At the very least, you need to explain how something
that emerges from the physical universe must be necessarily more
complex than the physical universe.

>> Second, your argument describes the next layer of organization as
>> including only multiple copies of the previous layer. In reality, the
>> next layer can and usually does contain other items, from different
>> levels of organization and order. Using your examples, a society is
>> more than a collection of individuals, but also the physical
>> structures that society builds, and an ecosystem is more than a
>> collection of plants, but also the animals which feed on the plants.
>>
>> And each item within a larger organization can change its own order
>> independently; the individuals within a society can become more or
>> less ordered independently of that society's physical structures, and
>> vice versa. Alternately, each item can increase its order only by the
>> reduction of order of other items; the animals in an ecosystem can
>> increase their order only by eating, and so reducing, the order of
>> plants. So one can't assume that increasing the order of one item
>> necessarily increases the order of the larger organization of which
>> it's a part.
>>
>> The latter case above describes the actual relationship of living
>> things to the larger Universe; living things increase their order only
>> at the expense of the larger Universe.
>
>
>Think of life as you would a black hole, an eddy or whirlwind.
>A natural result of the physical universe, the proper balance of
>order to disorder is certain to happen here and there, and
>evolution emerges, out of thin air so to speak.

Sorry, I have no idea what the above paragraph means.

>> Ultimately, as the larger
>> Universe winds down, so too must living things. So, tying back to
>> your original question, life may appear to win the order battle in the
>> short term, but ultimately, the Universe will win the war and drag
>> life down with it into disorder.
>
>
>
>Or evolution is an inherent process, and emergence so pervasive
>that the notion of an evolved life as far above us, as we are above
>animals, is the normal and expected state of affairs. And if something
>is almost certain to happen in the future, we can know with
>enough certainty, that it happened in the past, as well.

Unless it hasn't. The evidence suggests that the Universe is less
than 14 billion years old, but has many hundreds of billions of years
to go before its ultimate heat death. So there is much more time for
events to happen in the future than in the past.

[jonathan]

"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53640bec-e09e-4eb6...@k8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...

Well in terms of the large emergent evolutionary steps, say, from
microbes to plants, animals, intelligence and so on.
And the rate of change of these large steps appear to be
exponential in character, faster and larger as time goes.
Here's a simple chart that shows what I mean...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_life


I'm asking if that is a clear and natural tendency, or a fluke, in the
opinion of this ng. And if so, what would we expect from the
next great emergent evolutionary leap? If the trend holds, of
course.


>