>>Ccogan: No. I'm not implying that that one fact validates evolution. I'm
pointing out that matter has nothing against being organized in complex ways.
>>DNAunion: Actually it does: entropy. (Yes, localized decreases in entropy
are possible, but only at the expense of equal or greater increases in
entropy elsewhere: and the general rule is that the randomness and disorder
of a system tends to increase naturally). The problem with your statement is
that you incorrectly state that "matter has nothing against being organized
in complex ways." This is wrong.
>>Chris : This is irrelevant to my claim. My claim was the obvious one that
matter can be organized in complex ways, and I was using this to suggest that
it might be premature to claim that matter could not similarly (i.e., without
design) *become* organized in complex ways.
DNAunion: Then you should not have said that "matter has *nothing* against
being organized in complex ways". Matter does have a tendency to go from
organized/ordered states to disorganized/disorder states.
>>Chris: Further, entropy only increases where there is an energy
disequilibrium. A hypercomplex block of matter at absolute zero in a
completely quiescent "space" (i.e., no "quantum foam," etc.) might not change
by even one
photon's worth in trillions *of* trillions of years.
DNAunion: And under your contrived conditions, how much will complexity
increase? Zip. So what is your point here.
>>Ccogan: Thus, the question arises: Might not some small bits of it become
complex through natural, material processes not involving design?
>>DNAunion: Sure, matter can become *ordered* without design: the birth of
stars, the spontaneous formation of vortices when water is let out of a
drain, clouds forming from dispersed water droplets, etc. But these examples
of order forming do not deal with specific complexity arising by purely
natural means, and specified complexity is one of the main properties of all
life.
>>Chris: Complexity is not the problem. Randomness is *complex.* The problem
is the generation of what Schutzenberger calls "functional complexity."
DNAunion: Yes, I addressed *order* instead of *complex*, which would then
have involved specified complexity (which is easily created by intelligence,
but not by nature).
> >DNAunion: For example, "I suppose that even you would admit that computers
are very complicated. That certainly proves that material things can be as
complex as we might desire." Computers are designed.
>>Chris: True, but irrelevant to my point.
DNAunion: Yes, but we did not know that until after you made it clear (at my
"request") that you were not using your original statement to support
evolution.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 08:59:07 EDT