Re: Anthropological items

From: bivalve (
Date: Thu Jul 11 2002 - 20:59:31 EDT

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: Psalm 137 and God's ethics"

    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

    >Increased entropy by increased complexity? I think not.<
    111111111111111111111111111111111 is not very complex.
    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

    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

    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