]RE: Are there things that don't evolve?

I would disagree that suns do no evolve. Certainly losing energy may not
be a defining factor of 'evolving'. In fact most suns go through quite a
nice evolution. So I have to disagree with your obviousness statement
when it comes to suns and evolving.

I am not sure what you mean by 'law of entroy does exist in a closed
system', the law of entropy exists whether or not the system is closed.

What correlation do you see between 'increase in complication' and
'decrease in entropy'.
Mathematically? Intuitively? Logically?

You wrote earlier: "Evolution bothers me theoretically because it defies
the law of entropy"

But theoretically it does not do such a thing at all. That's mostly a
creationist strawman.

Debbie Mann wrote:

> Replying to Gregory Arago
> "Perhaps, after several people shared their knowledge about
> thermodynamics and entropy, you would be willing now to help put the
> thread back on track."
> by combining the various replies I have recieved:
>
> If evolution is defined using the 'by complication' and not the 'by
> descent' definition, and acknowledging that the law of entropy does
> exist in a closed system, then we must have 'something which does not
> evolve'.
>
> The most obvious thing which does not evolve is the sun, and other
> suns, which lose energy continually.
>
> 'Increase in complication' and 'decrease in entropy', while not
> synonomous, definitely have a correlation.
>
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 25 21:31:59 2006