Evolution - please explain

[Billy T]

Let's try to bring this back to some form intelligent discussion....The evolution of language in man. ...I'm talking about the biological adaptations that had to take place in man in order for our language to emerge....

Good job. (your long post) Evolution of language is often given as the reason for the Out of Africa, OoA, event, but the suddenness of OoA, is not compatible with the slow physicological changes you describe (required for flexible functional language more than just a few "alarm calls"). Thus your observtions tend to support my alternative explaination for the OoA event.

My post of 8 Oct 5 in the "about determinism" thread give my views and as you are thoughtful I hope you will read all of it and comment, but here is the part that relates to evolution:

....3) The primary task of living organisms is to stay alive, at least long enough to reproduce. Neural computations require time. The world we would experience, if our experiences were the emergent results of many successive stages of neural transformations would be delayed by a significant fraction of a second. During our evolutionary history nothing truly discontinuous ever happened in our visual environment. (The discontinuous changes in movie and TV scenes did not exist.) None the less, it was essential for our ancestors to have a real-time understanding of their surroundings despite nature’s temporal continuity and our neural delays. - Try ducking a rock thrown towards your head if your only visual experience of it is a display projected into the eyes (electronic goggles) that delay the image by 0.1 seconds! A real-time simulation of the environment, can be achieved in a neural simulation by slightly projecting ahead the sensory information to compensate for neural processing delays.

A real-time simulation would have great survival value. Perhaps the Neanderthals still experienced slightly delayed “emerging transforms” of retinal data when our smaller brained and weaker ancestors perfected a real-time simulation of their environment. (Ecological pressure from the larger and stronger Neanderthals would have accelerated the rate of evolution in our ancestors.) Likewise, the “Out of Africa” mystery, (Why one branch of hominoids, expanded and dominated all others approximately 50,000 years ago.), which is often assumed to be related to the acquisition of “autonomous language” (no gestures required - hands free and education facilitated), might better be explained by the development of the real-time simulation of the environment.

Furthermore, I think everything we perceive as being “real” in our environment, including our physical bodies, is a part of this same simulation, not an emerging result of neural transformations of sensorial data from any of our neural transducers. That is, all of the senses only guide the simulation, feature by feature, to keep it highly faithful to the current external reality. When an abrupt external event unexpectedly occurs (hidden firecracker exploding, etc.), it significantly conflicts with the events projected in our simulation for that moment. We are startled and the simulation must be quickly revised to conform to the unanticipated external reality. This revision requires approximately 0.3 seconds. I think it probable that the simulation is paused while the revision is in progress, but we do not notice as we are also “paused” during this brief interval, just as we are not aware of hours passing while we sleep. I think the unusual electrical activity in the brain associated with the re-initiation of the simulation produces the EEG signal commonly called “P300,” or the “startle spike.” P300 is strongest over the parietal region.3

Why the continuous natural environment should be dissected into “features” and separately processed as a means of achieving a unified perception of the world is a great and unexplained mystery for most cognitive scientists, but easily understood if a simulation of the world is constructed by the brain. The physically sensed world is dissected into “features” for the same reason that a pilot uses a checklist before takeoff. Dividing a complex task into its component details and separately checking each, item by item, feature by feature, improves task performance accuracy. Thus, both the real-time simulation and the dissection of the visual field into features have significant survival value and consequently are probable natural developments in the evolution of creatures as complex as man.

In order to compare the features derived from retinal data with those derived from the simulation, they must be brought to the same neural tissue. Clearly it would be advantages to make this comparison as early as possible in the sequential stages of “computational transforms” of the retinal information. If the simulation is constructed in the parietal region of the brain, then one would expect that the number of neural fiber leaving the parietal cortex and returning to the visual cortex would at least equal those coming there, via the LGN, from the eyes. In fact they are somewhat more numerous. They are called “retrograde fibers” and no plausible reason for their existence has been suggested. Some of the comparison may be made even earlier in the LGN, which is usually considered to be mainly a “relay station” between the eyes and visual cortex. (Both areas have large projections into the parietal cortex, so it can easily “know” when, where and what difference has been detected.) The quantity of retrograde fibers from the visual striate cortex to the LGN slightly outnumbers the number of fibers coming there from the eyes. About this second set of retrograde fibers, DeValois4 states: “It is by no means obvious what function is subserved by this feedback.” (from V1 to LGN) About the retrograde set from the parietal to V1, they state: “Even less is understood (if that is possible) about these feedback connections...” They also note that both sets are “strictly retinotopic,” which is the neuro-physiologist’s way to compactly state that each small part of the visual field is mapped in one-to-one correspondence with neural tissue. That is, the retrograde fibers return to the same small area of processing cells that the prograde fibers enter and these cells are concerned with only a small part of the image on the retina. This approximately equal number of retinotopic retrograde fibers entering the visual cortex, is not only explained by the theory I am suggesting; they are required for the simulation to rapidly correct for unpredictable external events!
....

 

[valich]

Ok.
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.

Characteristics in an organism are any feature that are hypothesized to be inherited from a common ancestor, but there are also characteristics hypothesized across groups of organisms called taxa. These common characteristics in a species can be:
1. Shared primitive characterics, ex. mammary glands
2. shared derived characteristics, ex. opposed thumbs
3. uniquely derived characteristics, ex. larger cranium in homo sapiens, the larynx moving down the throat in man, possibly to position the vocal chords in the appropriate place for language?

Primitive characteristics are those that are present in a common ancestor, while derived characteristics are not. Derived characteristics is what tells us about evolutionary relationships.

 

[valich]

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.

Thanks for clarify to me what he mean't by "re-iridium." "Re: iridium" has a quite different meaning.

In using the 2nd Law as an explanation, I originally tried to limit it to just the Earth, but because of the immediate protests, I was forced to say, "Okay then, let's consider the Earth as an open system and the universe as a closed system." Yes, I admit that this was a big jump, but could still be defended.

If you were following my posts, I also denied that the 2nd Law could be used as a "cause" for evolution, and I tried my best in all forums to prevent the subject of a causal force to enter into the discussion as I know where that leads to: a dead end, or endless arguments about the existence of god, or an all encompassing-pervading spiritual force of some kind.

In the end, in a closed system, entropy results in maximum disorder, and that is equilibrium. Organisms as they exist, without chance random mutation being considered in evolution, are orderly dissipative structures, i.e., they dissipate energy. This is on the micro, open system level. In a closed system, this dissipation of energy leads towards increased entropy: maximum disorder, equilibrium.

 

[valich]

My previous post - correction: Shared primitive characteristics are what are used to determine evolutionary clades, not derived. Sorry for the slip.

 

[valich]

Ok.
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.

The larynx lowered in the throat was an exaptation, a pre-adaptation, but isn't this the beginnings of all adaptations? This exaptation resulted in a function in man that gradually allowed him to have a wider range of pitches and tones in his vocal cords than other animals. Perhaps because we became upright bipedal animals also may have had something to do with the change in location? In any case, this then would result in a beneficial adaptation for humans to be able to signal a more diverse range of intraspecies communication, and this then would have led toward an exaptation that eventially favored an adaptation to develop language as a means of communication. I see this as an excellent example of natural selection: mutations resulting in a survival advantage that were more likely to spread and persist than mutations resulting in a survival disadvantage.

 

[invert_nexus]

Billy, I'll get to your post later. Not enough time right now.

Valich,

Characteristics in an organism are any feature that are hypothesized to be inherited from a common ancestor, but there are also characteristics hypothesized across groups of organisms called taxa. These common characteristics in a species can be:
1. Shared primitive characterics, ex. mammary glands
2. shared derived characteristics, ex. opposed thumbs
3. uniquely derived characteristics, ex. larger cranium in homo sapiens, the larynx moving down the throat in man, possibly to position the vocal chords in the appropriate place for language?

Primitive characteristics are those that are present in a common ancestor, while derived characteristics are not. Derived characteristics is what tells us about evolutionary relationships.

Yeah and what's your point? Your number 3 up there mentions the exaptations I've discussed, but grossly mistates it. "...possibly to position the vocal chords in the appropriate place for language" suggests that that the movement of the larynx was an adaptation for language rather than an exaptation. The various evolutionary changes which were co-opted into the manifestation of language could not have been adapted for as language would require the adaptations to already exist to emerge. This is, in a sense, identical to the evolution of bird wings which is why I brought it up in the first place. Bird wings didn't evolve for flight, evolutionary changes that were selected for other reasons were co-opted into a mechanism for flight. This is exaptation.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say with this post.

Thanks for clarify to me what he mean't by "re-iridium." "Re: iridium" has a quite different meaning.

Whatever. Loosen up. Also, I shouldn't have needed to explain it as he already explained it when you first asked him about it.

If you were following my posts, I also denied that the 2nd Law could be used as a "cause" for evolution, and I tried my best in all forums to prevent the subject of a causal force to enter into the discussion as I know where that leads to: a dead end, or endless arguments about the existence of god, or an all encompassing-pervading spiritual force of some kind.

Then what were you trying to say? It seemed to me that you were trying to show entropy and thermodynamics as a cause for evolution. The conversation derived immediately from your nit-picking Spurious's post delineating several 'driving forces' behind evolution and then went on to say that you would think that thermodynamics would play the role of driving force.

If you're trying to say that entropy and thermodynamics play their part in evolution then you're stating the obvious. Of course they do. There's no way they couldn't. If evolution somehow evaded the laws of thermodynamics altogether then evolution would refute them. So, either evolution or the laws of thermodynamics would have to go.

But you say:

In using the 2nd Law as an explanation

An explanation for what?

In using the 2nd Law as an explanation, I originally tried to limit it to just the Earth, but because of the immediate protests, I was forced to say, "Okay then, let's consider the Earth as an open system and the universe as a closed system." Yes, I admit that this was a big jump, but could still be defended.

Well. You made it such a large system that it is basically untenable. There's no way to consider the universe as a closed system. And, what if it's not a closed system? One particular branch of M-theory postulates gravity as originating from a nearby brane and this explains why gravity is such a weak force in comparison to the other three.

I can't see any point in considering the universe as a closed system while pondering the thermodynamics involved in evolution on a single planet.

In the end, in a closed system, entropy results in maximum disorder, and that is equilibrium. Organisms as they exist, without chance random mutation being considered in evolution, are orderly dissipative structures, i.e., they dissipate energy. This is on the micro, open system level. In a closed system, this dissipation of energy leads towards increased entropy: maximum disorder, equilibrium.

Yes. But, as has been stated, the Earth is not a closed system. And if you're considering the universe as whole as a closed sytem, then you'd have to agree that entropy can decrease in a portion of this system while increasing in another. So, we're left with this discussion of entropy serving no purpose.

It seems like you're just trying to give a lesson on thermodynamics rather than actually explaining possible evolutionary scenarios.

Anyway. Ok. Let's put a human in a closed system and see what happens.
Wait a while. Open the box. Better stand back. Entropy smells bad.






Ah. Wait. You finally got around to saying something relevant about what I've said about the evolution of language... Google delay?

Anyway.

The larynx lowered in the throat was an exaptation, a pre-adaptation, but isn't this the beginnings of all adaptations?

What do you mean? That all adaptations are exaptations at core?
Yes and no.
That is, they are all started as random mutations or whatever, but they remain in the genome or not as a result of selection, positive or negative.

That is, the period of exaptation in most adaptations are exceedingly small. They are selected for specifically for some obvious benefit almost immediately. In other words, they don't need to combine so heavily with other mutations elsewhere to have a significant selective value.

Exaptations and adaptations are quite different.

Feathers as a means of insulation is an adaptation.
Feathers as a method of propulsion in flight is an exaptation.

This exaptation resulted in a function in man that gradually allowed him to have a wider range of pitches and tones in his vocal cords than other animals.

Yes. I... didn't know that (sarcasm).

Perhaps because we became upright bipedal animals also may have had something to do with the change in location?

Doubtful. Plus there are a few other animals who have a lowered larynx. From Wikipedia: "some aquatic mammals, large deer, and adult humans have descended larynges."

In any case, this then would result in a beneficial adaptation for humans to be able to signal a more diverse range of intraspecies communication, and this then would have led toward an exaptation that eventially favored an adaptation to develop language as a means of communication. I see this as an excellent example of natural selection: mutations resulting in a survival advantage that were more likely to spread and persist than mutations resulting in a survival disadvantage.

Yes. It is an excellent example. But also problematic.

You've failed to consider the detrimental side effects to the lowering of the larynx.

You seem to be thinking of it as an adaptation. In other words, you think that the lowering of the larynx was immediately translated into a larger repertoire of call behaviors within the animal man. This is not the case. Other exaptations had to be integrated into the picture as well before this could take place. The brain had to be rewired and a new system of calls had to be put into place in the cingulate gyruss. This is even before true language is able to form.

In the meantime, the lowered larynx is a health hazard. It is very rare in nature because of the dangers. It increases the difficulties in eating and breathing.

This is not a neutral adaptation. This is a harmful one. It remained harmful for millenia until the other conditions were in place for it to be exapted into language. Only then could it be considered truly beneficial.

This is similar to the concept of half an eye being useless. But, in this case, the argument is better. The eye was able to develop in increments. However, from the very beginning it was used as an organ of sight even if the mechanisms of sight improved over time. These exaptations leading to language were not originally selected for in the sphere of language. Not only this, but some of them were harmful to the organism.

This shows very clearly that we don't fully understand the mechanisms by which evolution takes place. But, that's good. That means there's more to learn.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Organisms as they exist, without chance random mutation being considered in evolution, are orderly dissipative structures, i.e., they dissipate energy.

They 'consume' energy to maintain order.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

This is not a neutral adaptation. This is a harmful one. It remained harmful for millenia until the other conditions were in place for it to be exapted into language. Only then could it be considered truly beneficial.

I'm not a larynx expert so hence this question:
Would vocalization be slightly more efficient efficient when slightly lowered?

 

[valich]

Your number 3 up there mentions the exaptations I've discussed, but grossly mistates it. "...possibly to position the vocal chords in the appropriate place for language" suggests that that the movement of the larynx was an adaptation for language rather than an exaptation. The various evolutionary changes which were co-opted into the manifestation of language could not have been adapted for as language would require the adaptations to already exist to emerge. This is, in a sense, identical to the evolution of bird wings which is why I brought it up in the first place. Bird wings didn't evolve for flight, evolutionary changes that were selected for other reasons were co-opted into a mechanism for flight. This is exaptation

I did not say nor did I suggest that it was an adaptation derived for language function: just the opposite! Exaptations are pre-adaptions (a characteristic that opens up a previously unavailable function or niche for that organism). This does not presuppose an already adapted characteristic or an "adaptation to already exist to emerge," as if there was a pre-coded design for it. It was a gradual change that led from the preadaptation to the adaptation. Natural selection favored this gradual change to allow this adaptation to eventually be used for language: first through the beneficial survival ability that resulted as a consequence of this exaptation to allow us to increase the range of sound in our vocal cords. Natural selection favored this because it allowed a better trait for survival. The accumulation of this survival trait from generation-to-generation evolved it into an adaptation. I don't see the disdagreement?

The same is true of wings. They did not evolve first as an adaptation for flight. They were an exaptation - a pre-adaptation. Feathers were a gradually formed adaptation that were first used for thermoregulation or for protecting their young against the elements of nature, but then opened up the possibility for flight, as it then happened in stages: leaping into the air, the from dwelling on the ground to dwelling in trees, then used like parachutes or gliding, then finally flapping or active wing functions, further enhanced through the strengthening of certain muscles and the morphological reposition of the wing through beneficial trait evolution (natural selection).

One beneficial aspect of using thermodynamics as an explanation in evolutionary theory is that it provides for a "driving force," that other forces (as the word is used in evolution) do not provide for.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

One beneficial aspect of using thermodynamics as an explanation in evolutionary theory is that it provides for a "driving force," that other forces (as the word is used in evolution) do not provide for.

Natural selection as a mechanism can perfectly well of explain the diversity of life.

So far your thermodynamics argument has been unconvincing and flawed.

 

[valich]

Then what were you trying to say? .... If you're trying to say that entropy and thermodynamics play their part in evolution then you're stating the obvious. Of course they do. There's no way they couldn't. If evolution somehow evaded the laws of thermodynamics altogether then evolution would refute them. So, either evolution or the laws of thermodynamics would have to go.

If I was stating the obvious, then why were so many posts trying to refute it?

As organisms are a source for the dissipation of energy, they obey and facilitate the 2nd law by allowing energy to be dissipated leading to more disorder - greater entropy - in the longrun in the closed system. Evolution is a perfect example of that one-way forward direction and driving force that leads towards an eventual equilibrium through life and death and the cycle continues until it's so random that all organization is used up.

 

[valich]

So far your thermodynamics argument has been...flawed.

Explain

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I did.

You never countered my argument, just went on blabbing the same shit.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

As organisms are a source for the dissipation of energy, they obey and facilitate the 2nd law by allowing energy to be dissipated leading to more disorder - greater entropy - in the longrun in the closed system. Evolution is a perfect example of that one-way forward direction and driving force that leads towards an eventual equilibrium through life and death and the cycle continues until it's so random that all organization is used up.

Organisms are not a source of dissipation of energy. They store energy from the sun temporarily. The sun is a source of energy.

 

[valich]

there are a few other animals who have a lowered larynx. From Wikipedia: "some aquatic mammals, large deer, and adult humans have descended larynges."

You've failed to consider the detrimental side effects to the lowering of the larynx.

Agreed, I've neglected the detrimental side.

It would be interesting to know what other aquatic animals, as there is the similarity in deer and humans of having a more erect neck, compared to that of say canidae other predators that rely on their olfactory system to track down their prey: they keep their head more towards the ground.

 

[valich]

Organisms are not a source of dissipation of energy. They store energy from the sun temporarily. The sun is a source of energy.

All reactions cause a loss of energy. The sun is the source, but all organisms dissipate that energy. They then replenish it. If they didn't dissipate it, then there'd be no need to replenish it. Organisms are not perpetual motion machines?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The sun's energy would have dissipated anyway.

 

[valich]

The sun's energy would have dissipated anyway.

And we know that in about 5 billion years from now that it will. You must be being facetious!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The sun emits light. Earth happens to be in the plane of some of these light rays. Some rays hit clouds and are reflected back into space. Some other things are hit, reflecting all over. Some rays reach the ground. Some rays hit a leave of a plant. This energy is converted into a molecular bond. The energy is temporarily stored. Plant gets eaten by cow. Cow uses the energy from molecular bond to masticate. Energy is reverted into heat. Heat exits the cow. Heat is in environment. Earth radiates heat into space. Sun's energy is gone from earth.

Bye bye energy. Didn't have to wait 5 billion years.

 

[valich]

Generally, increase in entropy leads to a marked decrease in diversity.

Nice, subtle trolling, by the way, valich.

Entropy by definition is an increase in disorder leading to an equilibrium. In order to obtain that equilibrium the diversity of life function as a way of further maximizes the distribution of energy from an ordered state to a random state, which is then, in the end, at equilibrium. All living organis act as a organized dissipative structure until they die. Then they decay into more disorder. Since only 0.1% of known organisms that ever existed on Earth are alive today, that other 99.9% of increases of diversity of life have done an excellent job of increasing entropy.

You do a hell of a lot more trolling than I do: and I'm certainly not being subtle about it. If the topic is above my understanding, than I read and learn. If I know something about it, then I may or may not contribute. Either way, trolling - searching for knowledge - is just like going to school where you go from classroom to classroom taking many diffferent courses. All university degree curriculums require that you take a wide-range of subjects to graduate. You make it sound like I'm doing something negative or wrong? Hey! Lifelong learning is where it's at!