Jay,
I have talked to physicists specifically on the notion of entropy and the
argument that the 2nd Law prohibits the evolutionary development of
increased complexity. If your claim about entropy were correct, it would
be impossible for your papers to be filed, for the order is increased
thereby. In physical language, this is decreased entropy in your files.
What is required for the task of straightening things up is that some
energy be expended to produce the ordered result. As a consequence, the
total entropy of the universe has been increased very slightly. The 2nd
Law provides that, in a closed system, entropy increases. The earth is
not a closed system: it gets energy from the sun. This indirectly
provides the energy required for your continued order. If you were
transformed into a closed system, no input, you would quickly cease to
function and, in time, minute organisms would reduce your order further
until they too reached the end of their order--nothing from you that they
could continue to input.
One of my physicist friends commented that entropy is somewhat difficult
to understand, so that a lot of nonsense is presented in its name. He
added that entropy is a probabilistic concept, one aspect of which is
presented in Maxwell's demon. Dr. David Campbell may not be a physicist,
but he's got entropy right. You have believed a lie.
Dave
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 01:42:56 -0400 "Jay Willingham"
<jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com> writes:
>
> Dr. Campbell,
>
> Saying it is so simply says you disagree, which is fine.
>
> But it does not make it so.
>
> The explanations around entropy are forced. =20
>
> A Soviet doing anything is suspect until it is duplicated by peers.
> Has =
> it been?
>
> Even if it has, it is a far cry from laboratory artificial
> hybridization =
> to increased complexity. Both parents lose, information, they do
> not =
> gain.
>
> You believe in transition, I believe in extinction of co-existing =
> competitors, like Lucy.
>
> Taxonomical grouping and evolutionary theoretical descent are linked
> to =
> a great degree.
>
> Increased entropy by increased complexity? I think not. =20
>
> Peking man is an example of great suppositions based on the scantest
> of =
> evidence, lost save for casts. And since then we only have grab
> bags of =
> small parts from several specimens mixed and hypothetically
> assembled. =
> Competing species or antecedent? Interspecies love? =20
>
> Evolutionists too must take much on faith alone.
>
> Jay
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 11 2002 - 23:02:56 EDT