I would like to respond to Donald J. St. Pierre factually deficient diatribe (Post Feb. 29) against reason, science and evolution.
Anyone who has conducted biology experiments with fruit flies has seen evolution in motion. However, it is not necessary to turn to the laboratory to see evolution occurring when Abbotsford sits surrounded by the ongoing many experiments and experimental results in evolution that is agriculture.
Evolution does not require a new species as an outcome as can be seen in the definition of evolution at www.dictionary.com: “Biology: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift”. Evolution is change in the gene pool.
Milk production, beef cattle, crops all have been and continue to be genetically changed by the efforts of mankind. In fact one of the major driving forces of evolution today is the actions of mankind either deliberately or as a side effect of those actions.
Given the babbled mumbo jumbo that Mr. St Pierre ties to pass off as a scientific argument, it is not surprising he has such a poor grasp of what the theory, science and underlying principles of evolution are and/or about.
Yes mass is a manifestation of energy but its conversion to energy is governed by Einstein’s famous E=mc2 not the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation between heat, work and internal energy of a system. In simplest terms, the Laws of Thermodynamics dictate the specifics for the movement of heat and work. The Laws of Thermodynamics are actually specific manifestations of the law of conservation of mass-energy as it relates to thermodynamic processes.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are not the set of Laws that govern the Universe. They are a subset of a subset of the Laws of Physics (motion, gravity, relativity, conservation of mass-energy etc) and until such time as a grand unifying theory for the Laws of Physics emerges and survives testing, there is not a “Law” that can be said to govern the Universe.
As to Mr. St. Pierre’s claims of what evolution contradicts.
I will concede that if you use the narrow meaning of the term Biogenesis that is the basis of Creation biology, then within that limited definition, evolution clashes with biogenesis. However if one does not misuse the term biogenisis by limiting it in this manner, there is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
A cursory study of the Laws of Thermodynamics reveals that the Fourth Law is about biological systems and encompasses evolution.
As to Laws of cause and effect or probability, I cannot comment further until Mr. St. Pierre provides examples of what he means as it appears to this observer that not only do these laws not contradict evolution, these laws suggest and support evolution.
While I would commend Mr. St. Pierre for his statement about debate without the rantings of emotional philosophical bias, I am left wondering when he plans to begin or join such a debate?
