Keith Devens .com |
Saturday, October 11, 2008 | ![]() |
| Less isn't more; just enough is more. – Milton Glaser | ||
|
| ← No more invalid RSS feeds for me | Christianity explosion → |

Sam Kington (http://www.illuminated.co.uk/blog/) wrote:
Keith (http://www.keithdevens.com/) wrote:
Where those organisms came from, and whether/how they change across generations is a completely separate, orthogonal issue
That's an interesting point. Keep in mind, first of all, that I haven't read that page yet. But like I said last time, even if the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't violated by evolution, an input of energy isn't sufficient to create an increase in complexity or to transform non-living chemicals into living creatures. Evolution still has no viable mechanism.
We've established that the possibility of living organisms who grow and reproduce is not forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics.
Yes, but like I said last time as well, that's only because there is a machine or an ordered process that serves to keep the process going, repair damage, etc. Ultimately though, the second law kills us as our cells break down and our body isn't able to repair itself any longer.
Feel free to post a comment below. Please see my comment policy.
Formatting Rules (No HTML):
Generated in about 0.188s.
(Used 8 db queries)

The key paragraph to me is, after having described how a "program" (DNA) and "energy conversion mechanisms" (chlorophyll) mean that living organisms are compatible with the second law of thermodynamics:
Eh? We've established that the possibility of living organisms who grow and reproduce is not forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics. That's all thermodynamics have to say about it. Where those organisms came from, and whether/how they change across generations is a completely separate, orthogonal issue, and most of the paper from "Steiger's Brand of Thermodynamics" onwards is irrelevent for the question of whether evolution is possible.