ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (09/04/84)
{Herewith a sacrifice to the line-eater}
Just a brief addendum to my last contribution. There are
some organisms that seem not to use the sun as their ultimate energy
source. The biological communities that surround undersea vents
are using the energy from the core of the Earth as a source and
the surrounding sea as a waste heat sink. Since the core of
the Earth is kept hot by radioactive decay this makes them the
only examples of terrestrial communities entirely supported by nuclear
fission :-).
It's interesting to speculate on whether this energy source alone
is enough not only to support life, but to provide a suitable environment
for its origin. Probably the only test case we have available is
Europa ( a moon of Jupiter) which may have a rocky core heated by tidal
stresses and is capped by a surface of relatively smooth ice ( which
argues for continual remelting and refreezing). I think Arthur C. Clarke
uses it as the habitation of various strange organisms supported by
undersea vents in 2010 (for all you sf fans).
"Cute signoffs are for Ethan Vishniac
perverts" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (09/13/84)
> The biological communities that surround undersea vents > are using the energy from the core of the Earth as a source and > the surrounding sea as a waste heat sink. Since the core of > the Earth is kept hot by radioactive decay this makes them the > only examples of terrestrial communities entirely supported by nuclear > fission :-). (There's also the members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and their families... :-)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (A Ray Miller) (05/15/85)
/* Written 11:32 pm May 13, 1985 by miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA in uiucdcsb:net.origins */ /* ---------- "thermodynamics again" ---------- */ It has been suggested by some, that thermodynamics does not apply to evolution. Indeed, one evolutionist on the net, after giving us the entropy equation for heat flow, concluded: > In other words, people, the second law of thermodynamics, as the name > implies, has to do with *thermodynamics*, and cannot be meaningfully applied > to any other field. Sorry, but thermodynamic models have been shown to hold in other areas as well. One of the fields which can make use of this knowledge is information theory. It is here that we can see the theoretical grounding for evolution crumble. For example, Dr. Ian McDowell, an information engineer, wrote: "Communication engineers faced with the problem of coding and transmitting a maximum of information on a given channel have defined quantitatively the information content of a message. The amount of information to be supplied to transmit any given message using symbol x where the probability of any symbol occurring is P(x) = H(x) = SIGMA P(x) . log2 P(x) which is the negative of the usual entropy formula of thermodynamics. This represents a definite relation- ship, and it has been found that the equivalence between entropy in thermody- namics and information in a binary message code is given by the equation: 1 nit [unit of information] = 1.37 * 10^-16 erg / degree C. The degree of order [nonrandomness] in a closed system may be described uniquely, and this description contains a measurable amount of information. As the amount of energy available to do useful work within a system decreases, entropy increases and the information needed to describe the remaining order in the system decreases at precisely the negative of the entropy increase. Imagine the traditional `Maxwell Demon' who opens and closes a little door in the wall of a closed vessel containing gas under pressure every time a molecule of gas within a certain velocity range approaches the door, thus sorting out molecules in terms of velocity and decreasing the entropy of the system. Ob- viously the `demon' must be preprogrammed to do as he does. The information needed to specify his operation of the door is equivalent to the decrease in entropy within the system which he achieves by that operation. Similarly, the vast amount of information needed to pre-program the decrease in entropy which all living creatures bring into the closed system of the universe has been precoded upon the genes and could, conceivably, be measured. Evolution, said to begin without any such pre-programming whatsoever, runs counter to the findings of every thermodynamicist and communications engineer. Every thermo- dynamic closed system approaches the heat death; and no communications engineer ever sent a meaningful message with a monkey at the keyboard." Most evolutionists try to ignore the problem by sweeping it under the rug. This usually manifests itself in statements such as "Well, given enough time, anything will happen". A frog turning into a prince is viewed as magic, unless the secret ingredient of time is added, at which point it is called science and given the label "evolution". A few evolutionists, however, are more honest in admitting that a serious probem still exists for their theory. For example, Dr. Blum wrote: "I think if I were rewriting this chapter [on archebiopoesis, or neo- biogenesis] completely, I should want to change the emphasis somewhat. I should want to play down still more the importance of the great amount of time available for highly improbable events to occur. One may take the view that the greater the time elapsed the greater should be the approach to equilibrium, the most probable state, and it seems that this ought to take precedence in our thinking over the idea that time provides the possibility for the occurrence of the highly improbable." Personal comment here. Why don't you evolutionists all move your homes over a toxic waste dump? Mutations are how you claim evolution progresses; increasing the mutation rate should increase the rate of evolution. Should we disband the EPA? I'd really like an answer to this question from any evolutionist who doesn't consume heavy metals with his scrambled eggs for breakfast. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | In the human instantiation, the image is the substance. |
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (05/16/85)
> > /* Written 11:32 pm May 13, 1985 by miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA in uiucdcsb:net.origins */ > /* ---------- "thermodynamics again" ---------- */ > It has been suggested by some, that thermodynamics does not apply to evolution. Ray, this is garbage. You have been reading too much creationist writings to see clearly on this issue. 1) Evolution says nothing about thermodynamics. 2) Creationists are the ones who regularly bring up the second law of thermodynamics in the mistaken belief that it is relavent to the discussion. Evolutionists are only showing that evolution does not necessarily contradict it. 3) The laws of thermodynamics, that you appeal to, concern equilibrium systems that are closed. It is completely incorrect to try to invoke them when discussing evolution, since biological systems are not closed. Your arguments are absurd. You run to the first science that gives you something that you can distort and use against evolution. You seem to ignore the fact that the science that you currently appeal to, thermodynamics, is also the one that can quite capably deal a death blow to creationism as regards: Where did the heat of condensation/vaporization go/come from when the flood occurred? If everything requires preprogramming then who preprogrammed the programmer? Don't forget that this science also has a first law: Matter/Energy can neither be created or destroyed. Why don't you subject creationism to this consequence of thermodynamics? The fact that you pick and choose between laws in such a selective and convenient fashion, while at the same time ignoring those that destroy the basis of your position, illustrates quite unambiguously the pseudoscientific nature of your platitudes. >Personal comment here. Why don't you evolutionists all move your homes over a >toxic waste dump? Mutations are how you claim evolution progresses; increasing >the mutation rate should increase the rate of evolution. Should we disband the > EPA? I'd really like an answer to this question from any evolutionist who > doesn't consume heavy metals with his scrambled eggs for breakfast. > > A. Ray Miller > Univ Illinois We don't have to move anywhere to be exposed to toxic waste; your diatribes give us more than enough to handle. Padraig Houlahan.
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (05/16/85)
In article <1083@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (A Ray Miller) writes: > >Personal comment here. Why don't you evolutionists all move your homes over a >toxic waste dump? Mutations are how you claim evolution progresses; increasing >the mutation rate should increase the rate of evolution. Should we disband the >EPA? I'd really like an answer to this question from any evolutionist who >doesn't consume heavy metals with his scrambled eggs for breakfast. > >A. Ray Miller >Univ Illinois > It was quite a shock seeing the silly connections made by Mr. Miller in his posting. His last paragraph is a prime example. The best way of showing up this 'logic' as the farce it is is to throw it right back at him. Mr. Miller, I agree with you 100 percent. Also, since biologist and scientist say we only need oxygen out of the air why don't they just breath only 100% oxygen? Don't they practice what they preach? Well, I'm waiting for some answers from you scientists. And another thing, supposedly when driving a car somewhere the faster you go the sooner you'll get there. This fallacious thinking is even taught in the schools by using "scientific" equations of speed and distance. So why don't you scientist on the net drive 200 MPH whenever you drive???? Are you admitting you don't really want to get where you're going? I'd love to see the answers to this question! Finally, since physicist Richard Feynman has stated: "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." Doesn't this prove that all the saber-rattling about any so-called "knowledge" is all a bunch of hocus-pocus in the scientific physics community? And look at how many people thinking themselves having a technical mind actually fall for the line that the study of quantum mechanics really buys us anything. When will you people wake up? Yes, Mr. Miller, I agree with you 100 percent. Dave Trissel Motorola Semiconductor, Austin {seismo,ihnp4,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (05/17/85)
In article <1083@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (A Ray Miller) writes: >Imagine the traditional `Maxwell Demon' who opens and closes a little door in >the wall of a closed vessel containing gas under pressure every time a molecule >of gas within a certain velocity range approaches the door, thus sorting out >molecules in terms of velocity and decreasing the entropy of the system. Ob- >viously the `demon' must be preprogrammed to do as he does. Actually, this turns out to misleading. In a Scientific American article from the 70's, an ingenuous gadget is described which separates cool air from warm air by passing mixed air through a valve with a peculiar internal geometry. The valve had two outlets: warm air came from one, and cool air from the other. The valve was not "programmed" to select energetic or nonenergetic air molecules in any traditional sense. It simply created an environment where energetic molecules tended to go "left" while nonenergetic molecules tended to go "right". So what is the difference between this gadget and Maxwell's demon? The thought experiment for the demon specifies a closed system (two chambers connected by a valve that operates very quickly), while the actual gadget is an open system (a stream of air passing through a "valve"). Therefore, I agree completely that an increase in "order" or "total information" or "available energy" in a closed system violates thermodynamic "law" (or isomorphs of thermodynamic law), but this simply does not apply to an open system. And lest the argument of the valve being "programmed to do as it does" be raised, let me point out that fresh water is extracted from salt water in the natural world by evaporation. Another example of "increasing order" in an open system. The other commonly used argument is that "the universe is a closed system". Granted, but it is far from being in equilibrium, and thus subsystems (such as the Earth) can be found which constitute open systems. > [discussion of why thermodynamic arguments do/don't apply in biology > and how this is accounted for by evolutionists] >This usually manifests itself in statements such as "Well, given enough time, >anything will happen". Actually, it is more usually manifested in statements such as "Well, the Earth is not a closed system". And it isn't. >Personal comment here. Why don't you evolutionists all move your homes over a >toxic waste dump? Mutations are how you claim evolution progresses; increasing >the mutation rate should increase the rate of evolution. Should we disband the >EPA? I'd really like an answer to this question from any evolutionist who >doesn't consume heavy metals with his scrambled eggs for breakfast. Personally, I don't really WANT to evolve. I'm not aware of evolutionists who think evolution is desirable or pleasant, just ones who think it occurs. >A. Ray Miller Wayne Throop -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw