Even if I accepted all your arguments which I don't you would still be wrong because of this point.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

There are a number of flaws in your argument. Firstly, cars do not evolve, so the comparison is mute. Secondly, evolutionarily speaking the model t is extinct - no longer in production (reproducing) and thus dead as a species. Of course an extant species still thriving would be considered more advanced/better than an extinct one. And thirdly, your argument for 'advanced' is purely subjective - one could argue the ferrari is less 'advanced' due to its lesser utility, or shorter apparent species "lifespan" than the model 'T'.

Products do evolve it's even studied in most business schools. It is not the exact same thing obviously because you are correct they don't reproduce but they are subject to a selection process by consumers and they are tested by fitness for job.

Extinction means they don't exist the Model T still exists in many museums and car clubs. Yes it's not in production so it would be in and critically endangered species in your talk because one can never tell maybe the world tomorrow may fall in love with it and it may be back in production then. This is all really word play but that is what alot of your argument to me is.

No person or scientist I know would ever class a Model T more advanced than a modern Ferrari and that is why your argument becomes word play no sensical. The fact you consider by some word play you can invert and invent a criteria you can reverse that tells you that you are contriving an answer that noone would readily accept.

Thus arguing this becomes pointless because most of it is nothing more than word play.

I will have one last comment at the most wrong thing you have ever written from a science point

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Entropy says nothing about the susceptibility of systems to interruption; all it describes is energy flow in a system. So there is no expectation that 'complex' organisms should be more or less susceptible to selective forces (which I assume is what you mean by 'weaker'). Secondly, the number of 'things' you have to 'attack' has no bearing on your evolutionary fitness - for several reasons:

Firstly, more does not always mean more targets for attacks(and thus, greater susceptibility) - or vice-versa. In some cases additional traits allow compensatory responses, thereby decreasing your susceptibility relative to a less 'complex' organism. But more complexity can equal more potential targets for selection. 'Complexity' is a double-edged sword, rather than a universal panacea.

Secondly, the number of "things" (genes) an organism has has no bearing on its susceptibility to selective forces. Selective forces are largely beyond the control of the organism experiencing it.

If you believe all of that you need to go and do a huge refresher coarse on Entropy and science it's meaning and what it implies because you are as you would say are "simply wrong".

Your logic defies Entropy and in my area Quantum Mechanics your idea is in direct conflict with all it's central tenants. I know QM does not stop because something is alive and as QM has been much more rigorously tested than evolution I can say quite certainly you are wrong.

QM states a system in a highly complex state is probably far from equilibrium and in a low entropy (improbable) state, where the equilibrium state would be simpler, less complex, and higher entropy.

You state multicellular is rare and the above explains why if you hadn't realised it before that is the reason. Hydrogen is the most abundant molecule in the universe because it is the most simple stable state same exact reason.

Ethan Segeil did a really good article on it which you should read


We are here because of the most unlikely of unlikely events being the triple-alpha process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process).

The fallout of the stability decay of all chemicals due to entropic principles means that every atom or molecule in the human body is replaced every 7 to 10 years that is a huge cost to the organism and it is not optional because thats the decay constant of the molecules in the universe the more complex they are the shorter they survive.

Originally Posted By: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

A disturbance would thus facilitate the path to a state of greater entropy: The system will move towards the ground state, producing heat, and the total energy will be distributable over a larger number of quantum states

If you want some scale of the problem in humans we are made up of 9.5% carbon which is around around 10^26 to 10^27 atoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body).
The half life of carbon-14 is 1.808*10^11 seconds which equates to around 5000 decays per second that your body must replace. Potassium comes in next at around 4500 decays per second this is actually a routine lab test (http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard...gecontent270775).

Your body is committed to these replacements every second of every day it is alive awake or asleep the entropic principles involved are simply massive.

As an aside when people talk about Silicon based life forms these decay rates are the reasons against it. The half life of Carbon-14 is 5700 years the half life of Silicon-32 is a mere 170 years. So if humans were silicon based life forms the entropic overhead is orders of magnitude higher again than a carbon based life form just based on the increased turn over for the organism to stay alive.

This force is far far beyond the pathetic level of your selective forces it occurs in very short timeframes certainly less than the lifespan of most organisms and life is not exempt from the law. Thus a complex organism is facing a mountain compared to a simple organism just based on what has to be replicated on an ongoing basis by neccessity just to stay alive. Ultimately everything dies because it loses the battle to this law and even the universe itself is not excluded from it. If your selective forces were stronger than QM radioactive decay laws you would have species extinctions on average shorter than a few years and by your own comments its thousands of years.

If perhaps your interested in why everything decays probably start here with Matt Strassler

Your whole argument thus falls to the science axe of Occam's razor.

Last edited by Orac; 02/27/13 05:23 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.