O.Leo,Obvious Leo wrote:If you don't understand how evolution works then there are more authoritative writers on the subject than I, even though I've studied it for much of my life. However evolution is a very complex subject and is dealt with in a number of different sciences. I suggest you read up on non-linear dynamic systems theory and many of its related fields. These include complexity theory, control theory, game theory, chaos theory and cybernetics, to name just a few. I would particularly recommend the works of Stuart Kaufman, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Norbert Weiner, Claude Shannon, Henri Poincare, John von Neuman and Benoit Mandelbrot. Once again this names only a few because complexity theory is a very big science with a host of sub-disciplines. If you read and understand Ilya Prigogine's definitive papers on molecular evolution in dissipative structures then you'll have come a long way to understanding what evolution is. With all due respect, Greylorn, you'll have to do your own homework on this because there's absolutely no way that evolution can be explained briefly. However that it is the fundamental organising principle of the universe is self-evident.Greylorn Ell wrote:The proclamation, "They EVOLVE," is irrelevant unless you can define the mechanisms behind the evolution.
I'm a touch disappointed that you think me so dreadfully ignorant that you feel a need to recommend a number of books that do not consequentially deal with Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms.
In a sense I am ignorant, having never taken formal studies in or related to biology. My studies were devoted to hard science. To remedy my deficiencies I first perused Darwin's major books on evolution, where it became obvious to me that he'd based his arguments for the evolution of new species upon mere varieties (mainly finches). Shoddy science by my standards, but as I've subsequently learned, few biologists will let mere evidence get in the way of a textbook theory.
I found my first bit of outside agreement in Arthur Koestler's "Ghost in the Machine," where he debunked Darwinian theory rather effectively, then screwed up by proposing his own ideas, which IMO mostly sucked. Over the years I've read a variety of books on either side of the debate. Most were flawed, and written for non-scientists. Lynn Margules' "Slanted Truths" was especially impressive, but requires too much biological knowledge to be commonly read. It shows clearly that Darwinism is an incompetent explanation for evolution.
Michael Behe's two books, "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution" are excellent proofs of Darwinian evolution's absurdity. "Edge..." was the best, but more technical. Neither book is suitable for philosophers, who seem to be content with blowing off Behe's ideas based upon the rulings of the pinheaded judge presiding over the Dover Trial, rather than overstress whatever passes in them for minds by actually studying Behe's material.
Post Behe, I spent the better part of a year researching Darwinism via Wikipedia and various other internet sources. There I discovered "The C-value Enigma," a set of experimental observations that put the lie equally to Darwinism and Creationism. Of course, Beon Theory explains this easily.
I asked my question because it does not look to me as though the Darwinian mechanism, random mutation of germ cell DNA, is applicable. Also because your hand-waving pronouncement, "Clearly the first law of thermodynamics trumps the second when we consider our universe on the cosmological scale but when we re-define our cosmos as a non-linear dynamic system we have a natural explanation for this obvious contradiction in physics. Non-Newtonian systems operate according to a self-organising principle which is as fundamental as 1+1=2. They EVOLVE," is completely useless, except as a loud declaration of dogmatic belief.
Darwinian evolution is quite a bit more complex than 1+1=2, as you've proven by suggesting that I study Poincare, von Neumann, and Mandelbrot in order to understand it. Random changes to DNA have nothing to do with your alleged "self-organizing principle." My query was directed to finding out exactly what kind of horseshit you propose to pass off as that principle.