Your replies are brief enough that I have some difficulty in
identifying exactly what you refer to.
>The explanations around entropy are forced. <
I am not sure precisely what you are objecting to. My reply was
somewhat brief, so I will give more detail. The second law of
thermodynamics declares that entropy is always increasing. In
particular, the dispersal of energy as heat eventually reaches a
point where it is no longer useable for work. Thus, you can decrease
the entropy of a room by straightening up, but the entropy of the
universe is increased because most of the energy that you expended in
the process is no longer available for work. The sun and the earth
produce energy, some of which is used by living organisms. Although
they produce orderly structures, in doing so they are using energy,
much of which is wasted, and much of the remainder becomes
unavailable for further use. The evolution of new biological
information and new kinds of organisms involves similar loss of
energy to the environment, so that the net entropy of the system
increases. Claiming that evolution violates the second law is wrong.
The second law of thermodynamics does disprove many global flood
models because of the amount of heat that is produced by rapid plate
tectonics and by supplying and removing large quantities of water.
>A Soviet doing anything is suspect until it is duplicated by peers.
>Has it been? <
The experiment was a flop, as the plant had radish leaves and cabbage
roots (which is not the results expected from a faked experiment).
However, the underlying techniques are widely used.
>Even if it has, it is a far cry from laboratory artificial
>hybridization to increased complexity. Both parents lose
>information, they do not gain. <
I presume you mean that the descendant form has less information than
the sum of the parents. Actually, some hybrids may start with all
the information from both parents, but redundant genes may begin to
be lost before long. However, the main error in your assertion is
that there is no new information. This is wrong because genes
interact. Thus, simply by mixing the two together, new information
is generated. Furthermore, the DNA can be shuffled around to produce
new genes by mixing and matching parts of genes from the parents.
Furthermore, mutation produces new information. Thus, wheat is
unique in many ways even though it is a hybrid of three species.
>You believe in transition, I believe in extinction of co-existing
>competitors, like Lucy. <
These are not mutually exclusive. I believe almost all
paleoanthropologists accept the idea that the robust
australopithecines are a lineage that co-existed with early Homo but
eventually became extinct. However, both robust australopithecines
and early Homo also have a series of transitional forms linking them
with less specialized morphologies.
>Taxonomical grouping and evolutionary theoretical descent are linked
>to a great degree. <
This is true of modern usage, despite the claims in the proposed Ohio
standards.
>Increased entropy by increased complexity? I think not.<
111111111111111111111111111111111 is not very complex.
647981678291576234875678436587326
314159265358979323846264338327950
985769784326578432675642837658743
184913726894326584327659879236437
are all more complex and have higher entropy. One has particular
significance, the others were generated by random typing.
Starting from an initial DNA sequence, more variation gives more
entropy. It also gives an increase in complexity in some forms.
>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. <
This is wrong. Both the original material and subsequent finds are
quite substantial. It is also irrelevant, as the existence of Peking
man does not directly affect your claims. According to your model,
it is within the range assigned to Homo sapiens. Claiming it does
not exist only serves to cast unjustified aspersions.
You also asked about transitions between genera. Here are some,
culled from a few minutes looking over my shelves:
Kewia-Scutellaster intermediates Steven C. Beadle.1989. Paleobiology
15(3):205-222.
Ceratotherium praecox transitional between Ceratotherium and Diceros
Hooijer and Patterson, 1972, Mus. Comp. Zool. Bull. 144:1-26.
Petalograptus folium transitional to Cephalograptus tubulariformis
Rickards, 1977, in Hallam, Patterns of Evolution, as Illustrated by
the Fossil Record. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Helicorbitoides to Lepidorbitoides transition Gorsel, 1975, Utrecht
Micropaleont. Bull. 12:1-99.
Anabarella to Watsonella to Pojetaia and Fordilla Kouchinsky, 1999,
Lethaia 32:173-180
Pseudoplacunopsis schlotheimii with features of Eoplicatula (the
ancestor) Hautmann, 2001, Palaeontology 44(2):339-374
Oelandiella to Anabarella to Watsonella Gubanov, Kouchinsky, and
Peel, 1999, Lethaia 32:155-157
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 11 2002 - 23:05:49 EDT