Well, i wasn't planning on doing another post on this issue, Jewish Atheist brought forth an argument that i wanted to deal with. He pointed me in the direction of the TalkOrigins website which attemts to counteract some anti-evolution views. According to the TalkOrigins website, what they think i'm talking about is referred to the second law of thermodynamics. Maybe that is what i'm referring to, maybe it isn't. I didn't take this concept from that law. I took this concept from processing and understanding the world around me, and as such attempting to understand why what i see in reality seems to go directly against what evolution teaches. If someone else attributes this to the second law of thermodynamics, than so be it. I have done no such thing. But, for the sake of argument (which i rather enjoy sometimes) i will discuss this concept and what TalkOrigins talks about. (oh boy this post could get long)
Jewish Atheist stated "This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of entropy, which states that on averagecomplexity decreases. Locally, it's obvious that complexity can increase. Anytime a plant combines CO2, water, and sunlight to make sugar, complexity increases within that plant." I'd say that this is a pretty clear description of what was said on the TalkOrigins website, so to save alot of complex explanation and extremely complex post i will go with this.
Obviously there are times and places where elements and processes become more complex, such as the plant producing sugar by combining CO2 and H2O and a sperm and an egg combining and using the resources around it to over time develop an adult human. Thus that must mean that my argument is clearly nullified. Absolutely not. Simple systems are able to change without alot of serious outside help thus becoming more complex or simple relatively easily. However, this does not work the same way with complex systems such as the complex single celled organism discussed earlier, the human body, the universe, etc. In order for a complex system to exist it must grow and develop using a plan. However when that plan has completed that complex system begins to break down, thus the complexity breaks down into simpler systems. Without outside processes/help/plans the nature of complex systems falls to decay.
... Uh oh, i'm running late. I have to go to work. I will have to finish this later or tomorrow morning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
In order for a complex system to exist it must grow and develop using a plan.
Your argument hinges on this sentence. How do you know that it is true?
I agree with jewish athiest here, It is in fact demonstrable that complex systems can come from simple behaviors. Consider Conway's life more here.
Also consider chemical clocks, and the general class of systems that demonstrate emergent behavior.
Whether you can conceive of the life you see around you originating from a simple set of amino acids has no bearing on whether it's true or not.
Post a Comment