Because I know enough about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I know that it can be effectively applied to evolutionary processes. So it is not speculation. I said before that I have come across a few titles in evolutionary journal articles that address the issue, but it doesn't seem like a hot topic, so "no" I do not think it ia "mainstream." Don't know?Ophiolite said:
Evolution - please explain
- Thread starter root
- Start date
Obviously to say that it doesn't apply, you know nothing about the 2nd law! Every reaction causes a permanent loss of energy that can never be recovered and leads towards disorder - more diversity - in the universe: an increase in entropy and an increase in the possible configurations present in the universe: the astronomical diversity in the configuration of different forms of life and species.spuriousmonkey said:
Say it ain't so...
Are you saying that Valich is actually a sock puppet? Or do you propose him being a troll simply because of his behavior?
A troll is someone who posts controversial posts that try to drum up these kind of pissing matches.
If Valich is a troll, then I'd also compliment him on his style. Very innovative.
Back to the real world.
Ironically diversity of life hasn't increased really since the emergence of multicellular life.
What has suddenly happened to our 'driving force' of evolution then?
Ironically diversity of life hasn't increased really since the emergence of multicellular life.
What has suddenly happened to our 'driving force' of evolution then?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Thank you. At last. Yet you still couldn't just answer the question. It is clear that it your speculation. You've run across a few titles that address the issue. Shit! You surely are a piece of work.valich said:
So lay out for us, in a cogent, cohesive manner how the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be effectively applied to evolutionary processes. Demonstrate your superior understanding and induce us all to fall at your feet regretting the cruel aspersions we have cast.
invert_nexus said:
Nice try Invert. Are you condemning a person for trolling? For trying to learn a greater abundance and diversity of knowledge? Are you familiar with the phrase "Renaissance Man"? Are you continuing your quest to condemn a person who advocates new ideas or is deviant from the norm or researches outside a single given field? The same goes for the other posts related to "trolling." You aught be ashamed of yourselfs for criticizing a person who is trying to increase his knowledge!!!
Ophiolite said:
I think I have already done this. By realizing the effects of The Second Law of Thermodynamics above and beyond evolution, I am in no way "speculating" here. Perhaps other evolutionists have no desire to address it as an issue, view it as an unrelated proposition that is not relative to their narrower concern, or are not familiar with it. I don't know? Some do. But it's a Law!
You habit is misinterpretation and rude argumentation. I did not "call myself a Renaissance Man," I'm using that as a metaphor to anyone that condemns trolling! What the heck is "pig-ignorant"? Again, you're creating your own language. Kindly reply in a logical rational step-by-step detail how I have been ignorant in any way. Your posts are often sketchy so that one must try to decipher the absent parts to understand the exact meaning. And you overlook previous posts.Ophiolite said:
Hmm.
You are a sock puppet, aren't you?
Sniff.
Who are you?
I'm not condemning you. If you are a troll and you are a sock puppet, you're better than the usual breed of sock puppet. But, if you are then this is all an act and you are not really as intellectually dishonest as you appear. Rather, that would be part of your act.
As I said, if so, very innovative.
Not condemning you. The problems I've had are more in the tone of your posts. The intellectual dishonesty that seems to come through.
I guess I should apologize. My earlier statements to you about this thermodynamics thing were me thinking that you were attempting to explain something that you didn't understand but have seen in various journals or magazines. I now understand that this is your own speculation. So, my objections were different than Ophiolite's and Spurious's objections. They've had more time to analyze your posts more fully though.
I'm presently going through the thread to try to bring us back on target. When I first read this thread, I had a much better example of exaptation in mind than bird wing's. One that's closer to the meat of the matter. So. When I'm done going through it all, I'll make a post that deals only with the topic and nothing to do with your personal qualities.
It still remains to be seen (and we on this side of the moderator fence will likely never know for sure) if you're a sock puppet or if you are a troll or simply suffering from communicative difficulties. But, my objections (considering that you're at least an honest personality) are not that you're trying to increase your knowledge, but rather that your means of communicating carry across a good deal of intellectual dishonesty.
Seriously. Are you a sock puppet? Pm me if you are. I won't tell. I won't even alter my behavior to you in public to give it away. I've always been fascinated by this whole sock puppet thing. I never understood the mentality. And if you are one, then you're a sock puppet of a different stripe than most.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
If you have never heard the phrase pig-ignorant then you truly are pig-ignorant. The last time you accused me of making up language (re-iridium, as in with respec to iridium) I clealry demonstrated this was normal English usage. As I noted then and note again now, if you are not competent in English don't presume to judge others. If you are competent in English stop being so precious.valich said:
Come now, someone of your intellect is unable to decipher my compact postings? How remarkable.
If I had a dollar for every post of mine you have ignored, misinterpreted, avoided, etc I should be much better off than I am now.
I have detailed your ignorance repeatedly in multiple posts and threads. You are either thick or obtuse if you have failed to understand these.
But here is an example: trolling is not the search for knowledge; trolling is the deliberate provocation through obtuse, nonsensical, offensive, inaccurate, misleading, etc posts. Once again you choose different meanings for words from everyone else on the forum.
Invert seems happy to play with you. I am happy to castigate you at each opportunity - and you provide many of them. It is your nonsense that has no place on a science forum, but thank you for the diversion.
I do hope you are a troll. I am not certain I could cope with the possibility an intelligent person could be so stupid.
Maybe I have never been subjected to the same type of abuse as you apparently are in the habit of dishing out! I looked in my science dictionaries, then searched on the internet, and found no such word as re-iridium. Confusing to say the least, but I have no idea what you were talking about: it's not a word!Ophiolite said:
Ok.
Let's try to bring this back to some form intelligent discussion.
First. I'd like to go all the way back to the very first post in this thread and bring in a new example of exaptation that I think trumps the evolution of birds' wings.
The evolution of language in man.
Now. I'm not talking about about the linguistic evolution of language (although this too is an interesting topic and is even on topic as language can be seen as an organism with us as its host...). I'm talking about the biological adaptations that had to take place in man in order for our language to emerge.
The key point is that these mutations are not adaptations. I.e. they were not selected for in their role in language production. Rather they were exapted. Co-opted from other adaptations. Beneficial coincidence.
A short list of the required adaptations follow:
1.) The larynx lowered in the throat. In most species the larynx is higher in the throat and this is beneficial as it reduces the chances of choking. Animals rarely need the heimlich maneuver. But man is at a high state of risk for choking.
Why did the larynx move down in the throat? What possible use could this serve? It couldn't be for language. Or could it? There's still considerable debate on this subject, but I go with the group that considers this an exaptation.
But why, then? This is an example of a mutation that was not beneficial. Was not neutral. This adaptation is harmful. And yet it propagated long enough to become beneficial later in the evolutionary trail.
2.) Going on with the idea of the larynx is the control of the various muscles of our throats. In lower animals, there is no conscious control of these muscles. They are wholly autonomic functions. And yet we've somehow managed to acquire partially conscious control of our throat muscles.
An example of this is the use of the larynx in chimpanzees. Chimp call behavior manifests on both the exhale and the inhale. Humans speak only on the exhale (for the most part.)
3.) The brain. Our frontal lobe is huge compared to all other animals. I forget the exact size difference, but the frontal lobe is the largest in proportion to all other animal brains. Recent research leads to various mutation in the HOX family of genes. Note. This brain swelling occurred after the lowering of the larynx (although this is disputed. The hyoid bone is delicate and rarely survives fossilization. And the interpretations vary.)
Further changes in the brain are the lateralization of function and the development of the angular gyrus.
These are all the adaptations I can think of quickly. Although I know that there are more.
Language emerged after these adaptations. This is a classic example of exaptation and one which is far more personal than the thought of bird flight.
Man's brain. Man's mind. Man's language.
Not selected for. And yet here we are.
Gould coined the term 'spandrel' for such exaptations.
Alright.
So. On to the topic of entropy.
I'll break out a quote or two.
Ah. You just used the quote I was looking for:
Don't you think that going from the Earth to the Universe is a bit of a jump? Why not go to the Earth/Sun system instead?
Now.
Nobody is saying that entropy doesn't exist. (Or at least I don't think they are.) What they are saying is that entropy isn't a driving force to evolution. In fact, it's just the opposite. Life decreases entropy. Yes. Only temporarily and not in the 'big picture'. But the fact remains that this is so.
Consider a single cell. A single cell is an anti-entropy engine. It spends its whole existence maintaining a specific environment. A certain pH level. A certain nutrient mix. A certain mix of proteins and mRNA's. Every cell is a complex system which creates an orderly environment in which the DNA can survive.
The cell is a manifestation of Maxwell's Demon. There is a vast difference between the states of entropy inside and outside the cell. In fact, this very difference is crucial to many of our bodily functions.
And then when you jump back a bit, you have to consider the difference in entropy inside the living tissue and outside the tissue. The human body (any animal body) maintains its own inner environment in which all the cells can function. More loss of entropy.
Yes. Bodies create heat and they also move about in ways which increase entropy in the world at large (while reducing entropy within the body) but what does this have to do with entropy being a driving force behind evolution?
You've never made a valid argument for why you think that entropy in particular (or the three laws of thermodynamics in general) cause evolution. It stands to reason that evolution is influenced by these laws. There is no way that they could be otherwise. But, why would you claim that they cause evolution?
If the three laws of thermodynamics caused evolution, then every system which involves thermodynamics would manifest aspects of evolution and then this 'tendency towards order' that was posited earlier in the thread would be a consequence of thermodynamics.
Imagine.
Entropy would be the cause of order....
However. Let's step back and look at where this whole digression began:
Do you feel that Entropy is any more of a force in the classical definition than these listed by Spurious and which caused you to nit-pick them?
You disagree with him using the word force for his... influencing factors of evolution and then you jump to calling entropy a force and contradict your own argument on the specificity of nomenclature.
Is entropy a force?
Perhaps this is part of what Ophiolite was trying to get through to you when asking you about hypotheses/theories/laws. Although I think he was actually trying to address your seeming mystification with "law" and 'fact'. (A theory is a law. A law is a theory. A scientific law has no more power than a scientific theory. Both can be toppled at the drop of a hat. Scientific knowledge is never truly justified. It's never gets better than theory.)
Alright.
One last thought that just occurred to me.
On the subject of 'causes' for evolution.
Is it even proper to think of a cause for evolution?
Wittgenstein proposed that many paradoxes and conundrums of philosophy are not so paradoxical or puzzling at all. But rather that they are examples of poor grammar. The phrase, "What is beauty" as an example. Is this a philosophical puzzle? Or is this an improper use of language? Is 'beauty' a 'what' that can be explained in this manner? Does not the sentence structure create a problem where none existed before?
Isn't this whole debate on causes of evolution similar to this?
Is this really a problem to be solved? Or is it an example of poor language usage?
Here we come face to face with the need for proper nomenclature for scientific discussions. And, unfortunately, ponderings on the state of evolution and the origins of life are some of the most poorly defined areas in science (not the most, but definitely on the list. I'd place cognitive sciences as number one on the list.) It's for this reason that so many of these discussions tend to devolve towards a more philosophical bent than purely objective. Especially in cases like this where the question is grammatically incorrect in a Wittgensteinian manner.
Now.
If there were a cause for evolution, it would have to be the error rate implicit in the polymerase which replicates DNA (and/or RNA). This is made apparent in organisms with a 'buggy' polymerase. Viruses are famous for this, of course. But, there are no perfect replication methods known to biology.
Natural selection serves many purposes. It actually functions as a sort of error correction for certain vital genes. Some genes are highly conserved. Why? Because somehow the polymerase replicates them more accurately than others? No. Because a single mistake in replication causes death of the offspring.
Insulin, for instance. There are many other instances one could think of. Some are even found in the so-called 'junk' DNA. (Junk DNA is highly conserved, by the way. Strange, if you think about it. And for so many years they considered it junk. And even now the idea that it's not junk is spreading slowly.)
So.
As was said so long ago. And which we can all agree on, I think.
There is no driving force in evolution.
No cause.
There are, however, many, many influencing factors. Far more than we are presently aware of.
Edit:
Muaha!
You still don't get it?
re: iridium.
Regarding iridium.
It's a pretty common contraction.
Let's try to bring this back to some form intelligent discussion.
First. I'd like to go all the way back to the very first post in this thread and bring in a new example of exaptation that I think trumps the evolution of birds' wings.
The evolution of language in man.
Now. I'm not talking about about the linguistic evolution of language (although this too is an interesting topic and is even on topic as language can be seen as an organism with us as its host...). I'm talking about the biological adaptations that had to take place in man in order for our language to emerge.
The key point is that these mutations are not adaptations. I.e. they were not selected for in their role in language production. Rather they were exapted. Co-opted from other adaptations. Beneficial coincidence.
A short list of the required adaptations follow:
1.) The larynx lowered in the throat. In most species the larynx is higher in the throat and this is beneficial as it reduces the chances of choking. Animals rarely need the heimlich maneuver. But man is at a high state of risk for choking.
Why did the larynx move down in the throat? What possible use could this serve? It couldn't be for language. Or could it? There's still considerable debate on this subject, but I go with the group that considers this an exaptation.
But why, then? This is an example of a mutation that was not beneficial. Was not neutral. This adaptation is harmful. And yet it propagated long enough to become beneficial later in the evolutionary trail.
2.) Going on with the idea of the larynx is the control of the various muscles of our throats. In lower animals, there is no conscious control of these muscles. They are wholly autonomic functions. And yet we've somehow managed to acquire partially conscious control of our throat muscles.
An example of this is the use of the larynx in chimpanzees. Chimp call behavior manifests on both the exhale and the inhale. Humans speak only on the exhale (for the most part.)
3.) The brain. Our frontal lobe is huge compared to all other animals. I forget the exact size difference, but the frontal lobe is the largest in proportion to all other animal brains. Recent research leads to various mutation in the HOX family of genes. Note. This brain swelling occurred after the lowering of the larynx (although this is disputed. The hyoid bone is delicate and rarely survives fossilization. And the interpretations vary.)
Further changes in the brain are the lateralization of function and the development of the angular gyrus.
These are all the adaptations I can think of quickly. Although I know that there are more.
Language emerged after these adaptations. This is a classic example of exaptation and one which is far more personal than the thought of bird flight.
Man's brain. Man's mind. Man's language.
Not selected for. And yet here we are.
Gould coined the term 'spandrel' for such exaptations.
Alright.
So. On to the topic of entropy.
I'll break out a quote or two.
Ah. You just used the quote I was looking for:
Don't you think that going from the Earth to the Universe is a bit of a jump? Why not go to the Earth/Sun system instead?
Now.
Nobody is saying that entropy doesn't exist. (Or at least I don't think they are.) What they are saying is that entropy isn't a driving force to evolution. In fact, it's just the opposite. Life decreases entropy. Yes. Only temporarily and not in the 'big picture'. But the fact remains that this is so.
Consider a single cell. A single cell is an anti-entropy engine. It spends its whole existence maintaining a specific environment. A certain pH level. A certain nutrient mix. A certain mix of proteins and mRNA's. Every cell is a complex system which creates an orderly environment in which the DNA can survive.
The cell is a manifestation of Maxwell's Demon. There is a vast difference between the states of entropy inside and outside the cell. In fact, this very difference is crucial to many of our bodily functions.
And then when you jump back a bit, you have to consider the difference in entropy inside the living tissue and outside the tissue. The human body (any animal body) maintains its own inner environment in which all the cells can function. More loss of entropy.
Yes. Bodies create heat and they also move about in ways which increase entropy in the world at large (while reducing entropy within the body) but what does this have to do with entropy being a driving force behind evolution?
You've never made a valid argument for why you think that entropy in particular (or the three laws of thermodynamics in general) cause evolution. It stands to reason that evolution is influenced by these laws. There is no way that they could be otherwise. But, why would you claim that they cause evolution?
If the three laws of thermodynamics caused evolution, then every system which involves thermodynamics would manifest aspects of evolution and then this 'tendency towards order' that was posited earlier in the thread would be a consequence of thermodynamics.
Imagine.
Entropy would be the cause of order....
However. Let's step back and look at where this whole digression began:
Do you feel that Entropy is any more of a force in the classical definition than these listed by Spurious and which caused you to nit-pick them?
You disagree with him using the word force for his... influencing factors of evolution and then you jump to calling entropy a force and contradict your own argument on the specificity of nomenclature.
Is entropy a force?
Perhaps this is part of what Ophiolite was trying to get through to you when asking you about hypotheses/theories/laws. Although I think he was actually trying to address your seeming mystification with "law" and 'fact'. (A theory is a law. A law is a theory. A scientific law has no more power than a scientific theory. Both can be toppled at the drop of a hat. Scientific knowledge is never truly justified. It's never gets better than theory.)
Alright.
One last thought that just occurred to me.
On the subject of 'causes' for evolution.
Is it even proper to think of a cause for evolution?
Wittgenstein proposed that many paradoxes and conundrums of philosophy are not so paradoxical or puzzling at all. But rather that they are examples of poor grammar. The phrase, "What is beauty" as an example. Is this a philosophical puzzle? Or is this an improper use of language? Is 'beauty' a 'what' that can be explained in this manner? Does not the sentence structure create a problem where none existed before?
Isn't this whole debate on causes of evolution similar to this?
Is this really a problem to be solved? Or is it an example of poor language usage?
Here we come face to face with the need for proper nomenclature for scientific discussions. And, unfortunately, ponderings on the state of evolution and the origins of life are some of the most poorly defined areas in science (not the most, but definitely on the list. I'd place cognitive sciences as number one on the list.) It's for this reason that so many of these discussions tend to devolve towards a more philosophical bent than purely objective. Especially in cases like this where the question is grammatically incorrect in a Wittgensteinian manner.
Now.
If there were a cause for evolution, it would have to be the error rate implicit in the polymerase which replicates DNA (and/or RNA). This is made apparent in organisms with a 'buggy' polymerase. Viruses are famous for this, of course. But, there are no perfect replication methods known to biology.
Natural selection serves many purposes. It actually functions as a sort of error correction for certain vital genes. Some genes are highly conserved. Why? Because somehow the polymerase replicates them more accurately than others? No. Because a single mistake in replication causes death of the offspring.
Insulin, for instance. There are many other instances one could think of. Some are even found in the so-called 'junk' DNA. (Junk DNA is highly conserved, by the way. Strange, if you think about it. And for so many years they considered it junk. And even now the idea that it's not junk is spreading slowly.)
So.
As was said so long ago. And which we can all agree on, I think.
There is no driving force in evolution.
No cause.
There are, however, many, many influencing factors. Far more than we are presently aware of.
Edit:
Muaha!
You still don't get it?
re: iridium.
Regarding iridium.
It's a pretty common contraction.
Last edited:
valich said:
Then the 2nd law doesn't apply, because evolution occurs on earth. (for the hundredth time?)