Consider too, the amazingly short length of time it takes for a virus or
bacteria to mutate into a form that is no longer affected by a current
medicine or agent.  It should also be noted that the mutation required to
become immune is almost always ever so simple and slight.


Ray Shahan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Dirickson (Volt) [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 6:52 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Darwinism Versus Intelligent Design
>
> > Thus it was written in the epistle of Shahan, Ray,
> > > When we speak of the plausibility of things coming together
> > at random, it's
> > > important to factor in the immense amount of time that
> > elapsed while these
> > > seemingly random events came together...given enough time,
> > any and all
> > > possible combinations/permutations will/can be resolved?
> >
> > I'm told there are two problems with that.  First, the number
> > of seconds that
> > the universe is estimated to have existed is miniscule
> > compared to the possible
> > arrangements of the elements necessary to make, say,
> > hemoglobin, and second,
>
> So? Nothing says that every possible permutation has to be created. The
> number of different possible combinations of arrangements of
> streets/houses/factories/etc. for a city of a given size is pretty
> impressive, but we find that cities fall into a relatively small number
> of basic arrangements. Why? Because those arrangements *aren't* random;
> they're extensions/outgrowths of a previous pattern, which was, in turn,
> based on an earlier, simpler pattern, etc. Sort of an evolutionary "if
> it ain't broke, don't fix it." Or, in this context, "if it worked fairly
> well, there's no need to explore completely unrelated patterns in the
> hope of finding something better--build on what you've got working now."
>
> > the whole idea of having a system spontaneous *decrease* in
> > entropy is counter our understanding of thermodynamics.
> >
> > Ted "not an expert on either topic" Ashton
>
> Good thing you put in that disclaimer ;-) The 2nd "Law" of
> thermodynamics says no such thing, and there are numerous examples of
> local entropy decreases all around you. All the 2nd "Law" requires is
> that the entropy *of the entire Universe* not decrease. IOW, for any
> reaction,
>   delta S(system being examined) +
>   delta S(everything not in the system under examination)
>   >= 0
>
> The carbon dioxide molecules floating around in the atmosphere have a
> much greater entropy than the carefully-ordered glucan polymer chains
> called "cellulose" that make up much of the cell walls of plants. Look
> out the window; almost every green thing you see is negative entropy in
> action.