"A Mathematician's View of Evolution"

[CapelDodger]

I'm not saying that thermodynamics determines natural selection, in the sense that knowing thermodynamics (or physics in general, for that matter) is not enough to predict or explain everything that goes on with evolution.

Nor is it enough to explain everything that goes on in a hand of cards.

What some of us are saying is that the laws of thermodynamics are present in every single process that takes place in the universe, at whatever scale. What's more, you can even check that it works correctly in complex systems such as organisms. Other fundamental physical laws are supposedly working always, but they are too difficutl to manage to help describe a complex system.

As long as the sun continues to pump energy into the biosphere, evolution can buck the entropy trend. Life - evolution's playground - doesn't occur within a closed, non-expanding system. Life is a local element in the overall system, which is where entropy increases. Life reduces its own entropy by dumping entropy on the non-life world. Turn off the sun and cool down the core and that's the end of life on Earth.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Tai,

I've don't think you've ever just come out and said it so I will ask directly.

Do you or do you not believe that biological evolution happened on the planet Earth?

Edit: I mean "macroevolution".

I'll give you a dollar if he gives you a straight answer.

Steven

 

[thaiboxerken]

As long as the sun continues to pump energy into the biosphere, evolution can buck the entropy trend.

Which is why the 2nd law of thermodynamics simply doesn't apply. The second law is an observation of closed systems. Maybe that's how I should've phrased my objection.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is why the 2nd law of thermodynamics simply doesn't apply. The second law is an observation of closed systems. Maybe that's how I should've phrased my objection.

Wrong. You can apply the 2nd law to non-closed systems: all you need to do is look at the entropy changes they create external to them. And it can be shown that both individual organisms, and the earth as a whole, contribute to the entropy of their surrounding environment (the universe, in the case of earth) in the form of heat.

So it's not a matter of the 2nd law not applying, it's a matter of not applying it correctly.

 

[Loss Leader]

A mathematician using physics to debunk a biological theory? Next we'll have a chef using art to debunk a musical technique.

There is no greater guarantee of nonsense than to have an expert on one field speak authoritatively on another.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Any system which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with time.

The above statement has to do with a closed system. This is also the statement that the creationists use "against" evolution. Of course, they leave out the bolded part.

 

[Loss Leader]

Which is why the 2nd law of thermodynamics simply doesn't apply. The second law is an observation of closed systems. Maybe that's how I should've phrased my objection.

Wrong. You can apply the 2nd law to non-closed systems: all you need to do is look at the entropy changes they create external to them. And it can be shown that both individual organisms, and the earth as a whole, contribute to the entropy of their surrounding environment (the universe, in the case of earth) in the form of heat.

So it's not a matter of the 2nd law not applying, it's a matter of not applying it correctly.

Well, I think you two are actually agreeing. The 2md law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to a non-closed system only insofar as you only examine the part of the whole system that some are pretending to be closed but really is not. Of course, the 2nd law applies across the board even to non-closed systems so long as you view them as part of a larger whole.

 

[joobz]

There is no greater guarantee of nonsense than to have an expert on one field speak authoritatively on another.

Yup
But even in the same field, the continual debate between theorists and experimentalists can be just as nonsense filled.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'm wondering how it got published in a reputable journal if it is as bad as some claim around here..

 

[The Don]

I'm wondering how it got published in a reputable journal if it is as bad as some claim around here..

Perhaps you could ask the editorial board of the Mathematical Intelligencer ?

Please let us know what they say

 

[brodski]

I'm wondering how it got published in a reputable journal if it is as bad as some claim around here..

From their website (http://www.springer.com/west/home/math?SGWID=4-10042-70-1042774-0)

It informs and entertains a broad audience of mathematicians and the wider intellectual community. The Mathematical Intelligencer welcomes expository articles on all kinds of mathematics and interdisciplinary trends, and articles that portray the diversity of mathematical communities and mathematical thought. Humor is welcome, as are puzzles, poetry, fiction, and of course art. Forthcoming issues will feature emergent mathematical communities around the world, new interdisciplinary trends, and relations between mathematics and other areas of culture.

(Bolding mine) Well that's one explanation. The other explanation is that this article was never properly reviewed (it is interesting to note that the author himself admits -in the footnotes of your link in op- that the article as published was factually inaccurate, which indicated that it was never reviewed by competent persons prior to publication.)
The fact is that arguments put forth in the article are demonstrably wrong; to claim that they are true just because they have been publish is nothing but an appeal to authority.

 

[KingMerv00]

Tai,

I don't think you've ever just come out and said it so I will ask directly.

Do you or do you not believe that biological macroevolution happened on the planet Earth?

 

[Mashuna]

I'm wondering how it got published in a reputable journal if it is as bad as some claim around here..

'wondering' in what sense?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm wondering how it got published in a reputable journal if it is as bad as some claim around here..

Have you ever read, or even heard of, Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity? It was printed in a leading journal called Social Text published by Duke University.

Steven

 

[Mojo]

See: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/

 

[Foster Zygote]

Tai,

I don't think you've ever just come out and said it so I will ask directly.

Do you or do you not believe that biological macroevolution happened on the planet Earth?

That dollar is looking very safe...

Steven

 

[T'ai Chi]

Perhaps you could ask the editorial board of the Mathematical Intelligencer ?

Please let us know what they say

Those that claim the article is rubbish should be the ones doing that. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Ziggurat]

Those that claim the article is rubbish should be the ones doing that. Wouldn't you agree?

We haven't just claimed the article is rubbish. We've demonstrated why it's rubbish. And you're the one baffled by why subbish could make it into a "respected" journal - why don't you present an argument for why that shouldn't have happened? Because without that, I don't even see a question that needs answering.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Just because something is published in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean it is necessarily, generally accepted by the professionals in the field; neither does it mean it is without errors. Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal means that the article met the minimum requirements to be reviewed for the paper and that it based the editorial/reviewer board.

A better question than

I'm wondering how it got published in a reputable journal if it is as bad as some claim around here..

would be, "Have they published any critiques of the article and, if so, what did those critiques say?"

 

[brodski]

Those that claim the article is rubbish should be the ones doing that. Wouldn't you agree?

6 years after publication?
I am content in pointing out that the arguments presented in the paper are wrong, and have repeatedly been shown to be wrong. It is telling that you prefer to appeal to authority rather than try to defend this paper based on its own merits.