Darwinism is grossly overrated III
"Darwinism is grossly overrated" and "Darwinism is grossly overrated II" are here and here, respectively.
Uncommon Descent now has a complete copy of Philip Skell's article titled "Why do we invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", which was quoted in "Darwinism is grossly overrated II." The discussion continues in another article on Uncommon Descent.
I think that this attempt to have a grand overarching unifying principle -- Darwinism -- in biology is partly a prestige war against other areas of science. Atomic theory explains a lot in chemistry -- for example, it explains the Periodic Table and the different kinds of chemical bonds. Physicists are looking for their own "theory of everything" and the most popular candidate appears to be superstring theory, but many scientists regard string theory as unscientific.
My own mechanical engineering specialty of heat transfer analysis appears to have no grand unifying principle. Heat transfer is subdivided into three different modes: conduction, convection, and radiation. The unifying principle of conduction is Fourier's Law. Convection and radiation do not have any single unifying principles, although the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is especially important in radiation. So I decided to try to come up with a single unifying principle for heat transfer analysis so that I could say something like the Dobzhansky statement about evolution: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." And I came up with the following statement: "Nothing in heat transfer analysis makes sense except in the light of the Clausius statement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics." A simple version of the Clausius statement is that "heat cannot of itself flow from a colder to a hotter body" (a more detailed version says, "It is impossible to construct a cyclic refrigerator whose sole effect is the transfer of energy from a cold reservoir to a warm reservoir without the input of energy by work"). And unlike Darwinism, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a law, not a theory. LOL I also looked at the so-called "Zeroth" Law of Thermodynamics -- "When two bodies are each in thermal equilibrium with a third body, all three bodies are in thermal equilibrium with each other." But in that case there is no heat transfer, so I scratched that idea.
Uncommon Descent now has a complete copy of Philip Skell's article titled "Why do we invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", which was quoted in "Darwinism is grossly overrated II." The discussion continues in another article on Uncommon Descent.
I think that this attempt to have a grand overarching unifying principle -- Darwinism -- in biology is partly a prestige war against other areas of science. Atomic theory explains a lot in chemistry -- for example, it explains the Periodic Table and the different kinds of chemical bonds. Physicists are looking for their own "theory of everything" and the most popular candidate appears to be superstring theory, but many scientists regard string theory as unscientific.
My own mechanical engineering specialty of heat transfer analysis appears to have no grand unifying principle. Heat transfer is subdivided into three different modes: conduction, convection, and radiation. The unifying principle of conduction is Fourier's Law. Convection and radiation do not have any single unifying principles, although the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is especially important in radiation. So I decided to try to come up with a single unifying principle for heat transfer analysis so that I could say something like the Dobzhansky statement about evolution: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." And I came up with the following statement: "Nothing in heat transfer analysis makes sense except in the light of the Clausius statement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics." A simple version of the Clausius statement is that "heat cannot of itself flow from a colder to a hotter body" (a more detailed version says, "It is impossible to construct a cyclic refrigerator whose sole effect is the transfer of energy from a cold reservoir to a warm reservoir without the input of energy by work"). And unlike Darwinism, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a law, not a theory. LOL I also looked at the so-called "Zeroth" Law of Thermodynamics -- "When two bodies are each in thermal equilibrium with a third body, all three bodies are in thermal equilibrium with each other." But in that case there is no heat transfer, so I scratched that idea.
Labels: Evolution controversy (3 of 4)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/08/2006 03:12:00 PM
8 Comments:
> this attempt to have a grand overarching unifying principle -- Darwinism -- in biology is partly a prestige war against other areas of science. <
What nonsense.
> My own mechanical engineering specialty of heat transfer analysis appears to have no grand unifying principle. <
Your previous jobs of inspecting cooling towers and mopping out cold rooms do not require a great understanding of heat transfer. That is good because you have shown that you show little more knowledge of the subject than you do about law. Perhaps that is why you were only marginally more successful in that subject.
If you ever expect to find a job again in that field you will have to learn a lot more about the subject than you have demonstrated here. It is a little surprising since both your father and your brother know quite a bit about this subject as does your friend, Bill Carter. Perhaps you could learn something from them and become employable.
I have to agree with ViW on this one. Larry(?) has little or no understanding of any physical principles. He can research a problem and find out how someone else has solved it, then duplicate the process but he seems totally devoid of the capacity for original thought. I was surprised at one time to see how no engineering problem was so simple that the solution was not to try to find how someone else had solved a similar problem.
If Larry(?) had a hammer and a coconut, and the library were closed, he could starve to death.
Bill Carter (?) said --
>>>>>He can research a problem and find out how someone else has solved it, then duplicate the process but he seems totally devoid of the capacity for original thought. <<<<<
Bill Carter -- who I don't even know -- is so full of shit that it is coming out his ears.
At one of my first jobs -- at Chrysler Corporation -- I was assigned the very challenging task of predicting the windshield defrosting times of the standard SAE windshield defrosting test. I was completely on my own -- there was no prior research to guide me. One innovative method that I came up with was to substitute temperature-indicating paint (melting point 100 degrees F or more) for the frost and conduct the test in a warm room by reproducing the temperature ratios of the actual defrosting test. And the idea of similitude -- using scaled models -- is very common in fluid dynamics but is virtually unknown in thermal testing, so I was really on the cutting edge here. I also developed a means for accurately measuring the convective "film" coefficients (also called heat transfer coefficients) on the windshield by means of a commercially available heat flux sensor.
Also, if you knew anything about engineering work, you would know that a lot of it consists of going through the literature and product catalogs to see what can be adapted to a project. For example, I recently made a project of producing a low-cost tandem for use on tracks (velodromes). One of the problems was adapting existing components to the tandem -- it simply was not practical to manufacture my own custom-designed parts. Another problem was keeping costs down -- genuine tandem parts and track-bike parts tend to be expensive, so I used a lot of road-bike and BMX parts. Most of the specialized tandem parts that were available were designed for road tandems and not track tandems. There were a lot of compatibility problems that had to be solved. I had to use a road-tandem frame, and one of the big problems is that modern road-tandem frames have vertical rear dropouts that provide no means of adjusting chain tension (no problem with derailleur drives). I made a lot of big mistakes and wished that I knew when I started what I knew when I finished.
Also, my ideas about co-evolution on this blog were entirely my own.
> Bill Carter -- who I don't even know <
You have a very short memory. I have known you for fifty years.
> I was assigned the very challenging task of predicting the windshield defrosting times of the standard SAE windshield defrosting test. <
That doesn't sound that challenging. You could just use temperature sensing paint, a standard method that you would quickly find in the library.
> And the idea of similitude -- using scaled models -- is very common in fluid dynamics but is virtually unknown in thermal testing <
For the obvious reason that it works very poorly in thermodynamics. In most branches of mechanics a scale model gives the same results. There are a few areas; strength of materials and thermodynamics, where wiser heads do not use them. Since they thought that this project was insignificant enough to give to a tyro, nobody stopped you. They just watched you make your own mistakes.
Why were you fired from Chrysler? Why were you fired from Rockwell?
> Also, if you knew anything about engineering work, you would know that a lot of it consists of going through the literature and product catalogs to see what can be adapted to a project. <
If the problem is a simple bending beam with a single load, a search of the literature would seem overkill, still you were unable to solve this simple problem when I mentioned it.
> For example, I recently made a project of producing a low-cost tandem for use on tracks (velodromes). <
And turned out two laughable pieces of crap at high expense.
> I made a lot of big mistakes and wished that I knew when I started what I knew when I finished. <
No one would doubt that.
> Also, my ideas about co-evolution on this blog were entirely my own. <
That could explain why they were so daffy.
You once borrowed an equatorial telescope mount from me to use for a term project to make device to make an array of solar cells follow the Sun. The final result was so laughable that it would have failed as a high school science project. It could not accurately track a blowtorch at short range in a cave. You thought that you had invented the wheel.
At least you were better in engineering than you were in law. If your engineering talent were exchanged with your legal talent, you could blow up the lab while trying to invent a fire extinguisher.
> Bill Carter -- who I don't even know <
> Also, if you knew anything about engineering work <
Let's see here. Bill Carter, the one who grew up two streets from a Larry Fafarman and went to the same schools, is a registered engineer. Dave Fafarman is a registered structural engineer, one of the toughest specialties. There was once a registered engineer in Mechanical Engineering (one of the easiest specialties) named Larry Fafarman, but his license is no longer valid. That Larry Fafarman couldn't be you anyway because he is the brother of the Dave Fafarman who is posting on this blog and you insist that Dave is not your brother.
I am glad to see that you have found a place to spend your otherwise wasted time. As they say, every cock will find his dunghill to crow on.
Bill Carter,
Welcome back. Where have you been? Tell us more about this clown.
Well it looks like you drove the troll back into his cave again. He can't answer. We can now look forward to another attempt to distract us with another posting of drivel that he has googled up from his cave and can't understand.
Anonymous said...
>>>> Well it looks like you drove the troll back into his cave again. He can't answer. <<<<<
You stupid, feeble-minded birdbrain, why should I answer questions about my personal life? That is not the purpose of this blog.
You are the ones who are unable to address the issues, so you just make personal attacks.
> why should I answer questions about my personal life? That is not the purpose of this blog. <
Why do you introduce issues involving your personal life? You were the one pretending to be an engineer with a background of competence. It was necessary to expose this as another one of your delusions.
Your pretense that Real Dave is not your brother and that you don't know Bill Carter, are just symptoms of your mental illness. You prove that Bill Carter by always saying that you don't know who he is. It appears that you know who everyone else posting on this blog is because you never question anyone else's identity. What a simpleton.
> You are the ones who are unable to address the issues, so you just make personal attacks. <
We constantly address the issues. You have no answers so you reply with personal attacks.
Post a Comment
<< Home