Doesn't apply. entropy requires a closed system; Earth is not a closed system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamicsThe entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_systemIn thermodynamics, an isolated system, as contrasted with a closed system, is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. It obeys a number of conservation laws: its total energy and mass stay constant. They cannot enter or exit, but can only move around inside. An example is in the study of spacetime, where it is assumed that asymptotically flat spacetimes exist.
Truly isolated physical systems do not exist in reality, but real systems may behave nearly this way for finite (possibly very long) times. The concept of an isolated system can serve as a useful model approximating many real-world situations. It is an acceptable idealization used in constructing mathematical models of certain natural phenomena; e.g., the Sun and planets in our solar system, and the proton and electron in a hydrogen atom are often treated as isolated systems. But from time to time, a hydrogen atom will interact with electromagnetic radiation and go to an excited state.
Another reason no system can be truly isolated is that even in interstellar space, there is the 2.7 K background blackbody radiation left over from the Big Bang. This heat permeates every physical body in the Universe.
http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/browse%3Fs%3Dc%26p%3D80The principle that absolute angular momentum is a property that cannot be created or destroyed but can only be transferred from one physical system to another through the agency of a net torque on the system. As a consequence, the absolute angular momentum of an isolated physical system remains constant. The principle of conservation of angular momentum can be derived from Newton's second law of motion.
Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_angular_momentumSince everything came from the Big Bang, everything would be spinning in the same direction, right? Why are there several planets that rotate backwards (in relation to Earth & most other Sol planets)?
Also, I don't get that the reason that "no system can truly be closed" is because of the Big Bang. Huh? So what there's energy left over. It exists in the same system, right?
Um, and you're not talking sudden sharp changes, anyways. The changes - morphological - are very long term and full of tiny increments. The assumption that organs appear instantaneous in what might be termed 'modern form' is a major mistake, but a sadly common one.
No-no-no. I'm saying that it
has to be instantaneous because otherwise it's not advantageous for the organism, and is not carried; or, if it becomes a liability, then it's end of the gene pool. Right? Unless every single "tiny increment" was beneficial and/or the organism with a liability was able to survive until his code changed?
NB: a tail that was disadvantageous would be culled before developing into a full form (so to speak).
Uhm, no. It couldn't, that's what I was saying.
None. Nada. It can only react.
The
tail is not culled; you're missing the trees for the forest. The
creatures that don't have necessary parts/or have parts that are liabilities die out! And the ones that are left...have different code. And unless the code miraculously mutates back to the original form, or a part of the un-modified species was spared, that's the last of that line of code.
If (speaking theoretically) we descended from something w/a tail, that
system is fully in-place, operating, and beneficial. Why did it go away? The only way for a system to cease to be a part of self-recreating organisms is for it to stop being advantageous,
and to become a liability, right? How does that happen? "natural selection" aka "survival of the fittest"..the environment changes.. which means the affected line
dies out!![/i] You don't have a tail because it (for some reason) is not beneficial any more...and your ancestors that didn't get the change
died out? There's still monkeys out there. Unless you're saying that a certain group of monkeys decided to not use their tails so much that they ceased to be advantageous and became a liability, while the others stayed in the trees. The only explaination I can think of is a disease that made them not able to use their tails... but that'd make them less fit and less able to survive.
You're making the classic mistake, I think, of thinking that something that is kept as advantageous, is the only 'design' (in physical terms, i.e. body design) that can possibly arise with that benefit.
And the rest of the mutation's effects just hang around in limbo, until they are incorporated into a system bigger than themselves that is for the organism's benefit? I'd have thought that 'junk' code hanging around was a rather bad thing... it sure messes FRED up.
Of course, this is assuming you're dealing with emerging systems & species (macroevolution.)
Microevolution within an existing, complex system
designed for survival
can occur, and when the problem that requires the mutation goes away, sometimes you get your code back, because of the variables
built into
the system.
Anyways, I'm starting to get tired here... Been up for awhile; I'll come back and read more later.
