h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Maybe he's also not able to log on very often?

No, the problem is not with the forum. Sometimes it is more that some people hve a life outside h2g2. Perhaps more important is that tough and important questions require additional pondering to find answers and that takes time.

Your statement
Actually, what you said was "the major engine of evolution is natural selection" which is why I put it in quotes. Anyway, now we're arguing about what scientists say about evolution. You say one thing, I say another. Until one of us provides some evidence we'll just run in circles. Since you're making the controversial claim, I believe the onus is on you.

Of course you are absoluely correct. I gave some consideration to providing quotes from the article that precipitated this paper but decided against it. I don't believe that direction adds any value to the discussion we are having.

Consider that scientists are people who use scientific method to solve problems, or perhaps to teach others to solve problems. If they didn;t they would not get paid. A scientist using the developed concepts of evolution to solve problems in species development will find a great deal of variety in the population he is studying. I suggest that no two members of the population will be exactly alike.

Changes and developments over time will be best understood by applying established rules of natural selection to the population inevitably applying satatistal measures to round out the variety. In accomplishing his goal the primnary forces he will be dealing with will be the rules of natural selection. In most cases the rules for the development of variety will either be subsumed under the paradigm of natural selection or they will be considered too esoteric. It would not make sense for the researcher to consider the primary force of evoltion the creation of variety.

Thus, even though I can't undestand why any working scientist would consider the creation of variety the fundamental drive of evolution, the simple realization that hatural selection must have a variety on which to act is logically certain.

It is only when describing evolution, perhaps to someone who has no understanding of scientific method, that the development of variety becomes important. My attempt to show that evolution begins with the creation of the universe rather than the beginning of life is to add further understanding to the role of evolution and to eventually show the effects this has on the development of social and political institutions.

Now ltes take the next question

"The "rule of Evolution" that I proposed says simply that a system far from equilibrium with an excess of energy will move toward the creation of greater varieties of increasing complexity. This is accomplished through the mechanism of complex hierarchical organization. This is not a drive to create variety any more than entropy is a drive to cool off the universe. It is simply an observation statement concerning what we find when we examine the history of the universe."

Since this is an observation, can you share the observations supporting it? What systems have you (or others) observed, "far from equilibrium with an excess of energy", which then underwent "the creation of greater varieties of increasing complexity"?

The division of science that deals with "systems far from equilibrium" is called :Synergetics." It was a popular forum some years ago particularly with a group headed by Herman Haken. The simplest example was the phenom,ena of "Curie" temperature in iron. They were studying phenomena where with an excess of energy systems moving along a continuum would reach a thrshold point where an event would ocur that would produce a permanent change. An example of this would be the emergence of an atom under the energetic evironment in a star. When the threshold conditions occur some sub-atomic particles in the environment will fuse into a stable atom. Which atom will be completely determined by the conditions in the energetic environment.

Two particularly important points in the evolution of matter in the universe are the emergence of "hierarchical control programs" that only exist in living things, and the emergence of "choice" and "responsibility" that only occur in man.

Wally, would you mind answering the question as to which scientists are incorrectly describing evolution? That seems to be the central tenet to all of your arguments.

Actually, it has very little to do with my arguments. AS I said the thrust of evolutionary thought relies on natural selection. My point is that there is much more additional informaton to br found looking at the development of variety taken from the birth of the universe. This is not a matter of changing the paradigm of evolution, it is simply a method of adding explanatory content. If I gave the impression that I thought any scientists were making a mistake then I apologise. It is like saying to the scientists you have done a great job explaining the forest, now why don't we take a look at the trees.

Now to answer this conversation

"Keep in mind that the second law of thermodynamics refers to any closed system. That means it applies to the club that falls apart because it does not attract members with new ideas and to the bridge that falls into the river because it has not received the proper maintenance."

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is based on statistical ensembles, and it is a "law" at macroscopic dimensions b/c the variation of those statistics is extremely small when you've collected together Avogadro's number of atoms/molecules. When you have extremely small numbers of atoms/molecules, the "law" is routinely violated in the course of statistical fluxuations. Therefore, in the analogy to the club or bridge, since the numbers are so small, statistical violations would be routinely expected. Can you point to the data/observations which claim to observe the 2nd law applying to small groups of people, and explain how they got around the fluctuation problem?

I am a social philosopher and not a physicist, but the second law of thermodynamics refers to any closed system and is generally applied to systems under energetic interaction. Energy, in the simplest thermodynamic sense, is the capacity to do work. Is it not also the capacity to initiate change? The characteristics of an anti-war movement are not developed from the people who are its constituents any more than the characteristcs of an atom of gold are determined by the electrone, protons, anmd assorted subatomic particles that make it up. In both cases the characterists of the system are determined by the forces that constrain its activities.

The purpose of an anti-war movement is to initiate a change in the existing political climate. The energy that propels the activities is derived from the opposition between the conditions that exist and the conditions that are desired. Without the contuing imput of ideas that accentuate this opposition the movement will disintegrate. If you consider an anti-war movement to be the leaders and the members of the movement this will not be apparant. However, if you considser that structure of the movement is determined by the forces derived from the discontent then you should be able to see this as a social example of the second law of thermodynamics.

What do you mean by the statement "under energetic interaction"? If the system is closed, you must mean internal interaction? But that would be redundant, because within the defined system there must be interactions, otherwise you would have chosen a smaller system as your closed system.

Energy is the capacity to do work, in the *strict* definition that
W = m*a*d

W work
m mass
a acceleration
d distance

Energy is also a measure of the heat content. From thermo
U = q + w

U internal energy
q heat applied
w work applied

Application of energy does cause changes. By definition. If you have no observable change, how could you say you have applied or absorbed any energy?

I'm sorry, but the characteristics of an atom of gold *are* determined by the electron, protons and assorted subatomic particles, and their interactions with each other.

What precisely do you mean by "the forces that constrain its activities"? What forces constrain the activities of an atom of gold? Any force external to this atom (and hence constraining it) does affect it, but it still remains gold. If you're refering to fundamental forces of the universe (e.g. electromagnetic) than it is quite pointless to talk about the constituents (protons and electrons) in the absence of this force. Hence, it would be meaningless to say "the characteristics of an atom of gold are not determined by the protons and electrons, but rather the electromagnetic force that constrains them".

It's like the old song "Love and Marriage - you can't have one without the other!"

That is why I maintain that evolution always involves open systems. That is why I said that a system that does not import energy, like the defunct club I mentioned will not last. Remember that many scientists believe that even the proton has a half life. Once you wall off the world you become a closed system and are suject toforces equivalent to the second law of thermodynamics.

If you have one atom of gold and two atoms of an element with half the atomic number you have the same number of subatomic particles in each case but very different properties. It is the same as if you have two paintings, one by a master and the other by an amateur using exactly the same paints. Thre is a very great difference between the two and that difference is not determined by the ingrediants any more than the properties of gold are determined by its ingrediants.

You are correct, of caurse to say that the ingrediants are necessary and that without them there would be no atom of gold or no painting. In both cases the ingrediants are necessary but it is not just the physical forces that determine the properties of the atom, but the complex organization of these basic physical forces. The basic physical laws thar constrain these forces require physical ingrediants to work with. This complex organization of basic physical forces does not freese the ingrediants in the atom. it constrains them in such a way that by allowing them to combine with other atoms increaes the freedom that they atom has.

The purpose of hierarchical constraint is to constrain the particles in a way that provides greater freedom.

The master painter has developed the ability to constrain the color and shadings in his masterpiece so that they produce feelings of appreciation in the mind of the viewer. However, everyone who views that same masterpiece will carry from the experience a different set of feelings depending on the relationship between his self and the experince of the viewing. In fact if you have an appreciation for art there is not doubt at all that each time you view the same masterpiece you will come away with a different appreciation.

What we call Complex Hierarchical Constraint is whatever it takes to bring something into existence. Atoms are not glued together. They are dynamic entities which provide the basis for most of what we find in the world around us and what we do with what we find. It is the characteristics provided by hierarchical constraint that bind something into existence and provide greater freedom at the same time.

This is why when I say that the addition of constraint programs with the advent of living forms brings into existence a higher form of complexity because these programs increase the freedom of life to develop in more ways. Finally I say that the advent of freedom and choice available only in man is the next step in evolutionary complexity.

Finally, everything that exists that is above the level of man has been created by man making man the master of evolution.

That didn't answer any of the questions I posed.

Congratulations Arnie,

At least you are reading and arguing against Wally's theory, and asking for explanations, as opposed to the initial bought of 'put-downs' which he received.

Novo

Errata,

"bout of 'put-downs"

Novo

Thanks Novo.