Re: That (not so) idiot Darwin

From: J. R. Molloy (
Date: Thu Jan 18 2001 - 19:39:51 MST


If evolution is entropic, that makes extropians anti-evolution.

Sorry, that doesn't compute. τΏτ

Stay hungry,

--J. R.
3M TA3

Useless hypotheses: consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind,
free will

----- Original Message -----
From: "Technotranscendence" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: That (not so) idiot Darwin

> On Wednesday, January 17, 2001 11:14 AM J. R. Molloy
> > > At first glance, this is somewhat similar to the argument in
> > > as Entropy_.
> >
> > Yes, it has some parallels, I suppose. Anyway, for me to feel
> > with this terminology, I'd like to see the term extropy correspond to
> > evolution, and entropy to devolution. That makes more sense to me. The
> > only kind of evolution that I can see as entropic would involve a
> > in the meaning of evolution such that it implies a movement toward the
> > heat death of the universe. To me, that connotes the devolution of
> > complexity.
> This seems to be more an argument from intuitiveness than anything else.
> That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Even so, what Brooks and
> are getting at is that a lot of biological phenomena including evolution
> (they also treat ontogeny and other phenomena) can be explained as
> of increasing information entropy.
> Also, you seem to restrict "evolution" to progress. I would not equate
> two. Over time, evolving systems usually become more complex, but this
> not necessarily mean each component is all that complex. Think of
> that lose everything but the ability to latch on to a host, feed, and
> reproduce.
> "Devolution" is a term I would hardly use at all because it seems
> Is the equine line losing toes an example of evolution or devolution?
> about birds losing teeth? The cetaceans adapting to an aquatic
> See what I mean? To me, it's evolution, but then all changes over time
> that level are, to me, evolution in action. I might be inclined to
> "evolution" to stuff that is irreversibly changed. Thus, extinction is
> evolutionary than, say, those moths in England changing color. The
> is permanent; the latter transitory -- i.e., the color trait is
> (Of course, I would not use devolution at all.)
> That said, I'm a bit afraid of even doing that since it would bias
> evolutionary theories in favor of ones that use thermodynamics, such as
> Brooks-Wiley one or Wicken's. (We haven't gone over Wicken here. I
> the reference right now.)
> Cheers!
> Daniel Ust

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:20 MDT