GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine?

I have received a personal e-mail ostensibly from G.P. Gladyshev with the request to post a paper he titled "On the History of Creation of the Thermodynamic Theory of the Origin of Life, Biological Evolution, and the Aging of Living Beings" but I also have my somewhat cobbled up "working paper" which is also rather long. Can either or both be started as a new topic?The email was:
To: Dr. Brad McFall, 04.20.2004Dear Dr. McFall,During two years, I had a look at your e-mails in EvC Forum.Thank you for your attention to my thermodynamic theory of the origin of
life, biological evolution, and the aging of living beings.Now at my site there are some new papers ( http://www.endeav.org/evolute ),
however not only in English, and in Russian.I would like to send you my articles by post. Give me your address, please.
Give me your private e-mail address too, please.For the best information about my theory, I prepare the paper "On the
History of Creation of the Thermodynamic Theory of the Origin of Life,
Biological Evolution, and the Aging of Living Beings". May be it will be
useful to publish it in EvC Forum at "Free For All" or "Origin of Life.
Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution" ? As you know, there are many
misunderstanding in science especially in the field of thermodynamics. I
shall send you same papers about entropy (if you like).Thank you once again.----------
I assume this is really Gladyshev but I will wait till I receive snail mail if you guys like and could post my own work which we could talk about integrating with this prepared paper of Gladyshev which discusses temporal hierarchies.The possible disagreement might(I dont know for sure) be traced to this quote

quote:

---

"Returning to the case of living creatures it may first be remarked that the making of an accurate entropy balance on an organism together with its environment (i.e. the 'sufficiently enlarged system' referred to above) is a matter of very considerable difficulty. Nevertheless such experimental evidence as is available (e.g. Linschitz, 1953) has not revealed any contravention of the Second Law.

​

What then is meant by those who maintain that the phenomenon of life is not easily reconcilable with this law? I think that what they have in mind is a rather vague assertion to the effect that (a) organisms are highly 'orderly' and/ or 'organized' systems; (b) 'orderliness' and 'organization' are inversely related to entropy: and therefore (c) organisms are abnormally low entropy systems. They may then wish to go beyond (a), (b) and (c) and to assert that organisms somehow avoid the Second Law, even after allowing for their 'openness'. Or without actually going so far they may wish only to say that highly orderly and/or organized systems are exceedingly improbable, that improbability is related to low entropy and that Einstein's fluctuation theory is sufficient to show that, even within an open system, a fluctuation sufficient to produce a local increase of order and/or of organization of sufficient magnitude is exceedingly unlikely."

---

It is also possible no such disagreement exists.
This quote is from not any of GP's work!!!
That would be better. There IS no such disagreement with Gladyshev!![This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-22-2004][This message has been edited Brad McFall, 05-03-2004]

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

All readers should note that EvC IS making an impact in the arena of traditional publishing for Georgi P. sent me a paper(I will review what he sent later) that was published in "Progress in Reaction Kinetics And Mechanism An International Journal" in 2003 titled 'Thermodynamic Self-Organization As A Mechanism of Hierarchial Structure Formation of Biological Matter' where you can find (I found a clear understanding of what we have talked about here on eVc) "I believe, as do some of my collegues, that the findings presented in this paper boost the ideas of Galelio, Maxwell, Charles Darwin and other classics, based on the belief that there exist universal laws operating at all hierarchical levels of matter"&"One often hears in the past years that to solve universal problems, "one should base onself totally on the ideas of Gladyshev,Galelio and Maxwell" regarding the trend of evolution evolution "in the strict conformity with the universal laws of Nature". What is more, some researchers believe that the Darwinian theory of biological evolution should be carried futher by "Gladyshev's macrothermodynamcis" - hierarchical thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems, whose existence in real world has been proved irrefutabley (cf. Internet site: Evolution vs Thermodynamics- EvC Forum. Search words in http://www.yahoo.com: Gladyshev, Galileo and Maxwell, "Galdyshev's macrothermodynamics",etc.)" I have not done this search but I know well enough my own end.
EvC Forum: Darwinist language> I do not know if this is what Georgi was refering to or not.

quote:

---

Lecture at Universities and Academies, 2003

​

On the History of Creation of the Thermodynamic Theory of the Origin of Life, Biological Evolution, and the Aging of Living Beings

​

Professor G.P. Gladyshev
Dr. Sci. (Physical Chemistry, Chemistry of Polymers)
Honorary Member of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences and the Russian Higher Education Academy of Sciences
International Academy of Endeavors, Moscow, Russia — San Diego, United States of America
N.N. Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 117977, Moscow, ul. Kosygina, 4
http://www.endeav.org/evolut E-mail: academy@endeav.org

​

The author describes the important, key issues of the history of the thermodynamic theory of the origin of life, biological evolution, and the aging of living beings. This paper considers issues arising from the contribution of the second law of thermodynamics and the law of temporal hierarchies to the understanding of the natural origin and evolution of the living world. General problems of science and creationism are discussed briefly.

​

Key words: thermodynamics, the second law, the law of temporal hierarchies, the origin of life, biological evolution, aging, science and creationism

​

In 1956 — 1959, while a student of the department of chemistry of the State University of Kazakhstan in Alma-Ata, I did a considerable volume of experimental work at the chair of physical chemistry. At that time, it was headed by the widely known Mikhail I. Usanovich, who made a name for himself thanks to his theory of acids and bases. Regular communication with Professor Usanovich for three years was instrumental in shaping my views as a physical chemist. I became involved in the study of phase and chemical equilibriums using a variety of physicochemical methods and techniques. In those years, I was fortunate enough to realize the faultlessness of the apparatus of classical thermodynamics. Equilibrium thermodynamics seemed to me a ‘machine’ that, providing the premises were correct, invariably produced correct results. Later, studying the work of J.W. Gibbs, I realized that this can be explained, first of all, by the fact that classical thermodynamics rests on universal (general) laws of nature and uses a rigorous mathematical apparatus of full differentials. Even then I intuitively realized that equilibrium or, to be more precise, quasi-equilibrium thermodynamics may be used to study the evolution of natural biological systems. Those were, however, general ideas that needed verification!

​

Since the end of 1959 and up to the early 1970s, my excellent teacher Sagid R. Rafikov and I studied vinyl monomer polymerization and developed new technologies for the manufacture of polymer materials. We mostly used kinetic methods.

​

Since 1970, on the suggestion of Nikolai Emanuel at the USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of Chemical Physics, I did work in polymer chemistry with a view to developing effective heat-resistant polymer stabilization techniques.

​

Along with this research, which was, for the main part, applied, I produced a number of theoretical papers on different problems of the physical sciences. They dealt predominantly with the physicochemical aspects of natural evolutionary processes (a physicochemical model of the origin of the Solar system, the origin of spatial periodic structures in planetary systems and the atmosphere of comets, the origin of optical activity in living nature, a physicochemical model of ball lightning, the phenomenon of periodic polymerization, and the effect of magnetic fields on the living beings). Me special interests were connected with classical thermodynamics and evolutionary biology. I had a chance to concentrate on developing a thermodynamic theory of the origin of life, biological evolution and the aging of living beings only in January 1976. Needless to say, everything began with intuitive surmises.

​

In those years, most scientists were convinced that classical (equilibrium) thermodynamics had nothing to do with the origin of life, biological evolution and the aging of living beings. This was repeatedly pointed out to me by the famous Nikolai N. Semenov. This seemingly irrevocable conviction elevated to the rank of absolute truth had many reasons. The main one was that classical thermodynamics could not be applied to open and, as was asserted, far from equilibrium biological systems. It was assumed that all processes in the living systems are far from equilibrium. However, the type of equilibrium was not usually specified. As subsequently became clear, such specification was quite necessary for interpreting biological evolution and the aging of living beings within the framework of approximate equilibrium models.

​

At that time, the most fashionable theory was probably the one formulated by Ilya R. Prigogine and his colleagues. It maintained that open natural biological systems are far from equilibrium. This seemed to imply that they (such systems) can be formed and exist only as a result of the formation of live dissipative structures. I would like to note that under dramatic changes of the environment’s parameters (I call such changes revolutionary, as opposed to evolutionary), individual biological systems function in conditions that are far from equilibriums. In such conditions one can, indeed, observe the emergence of dissipative (dynamic) structures. However, the role of these structures in the evolutionary development of living objects is not determinative. In my view, Prigogine’s theory was a dead end in terms of thermodynamics or, at best, in Roger Penrose’s terms, a trial one. Still, many researchers remain faithful to these views, although, as applied to evolutionary biological processes, there is not a single even semi-quantitative argument in favor of Prigogine’s theory. Also, delusions in the area of thermodynamics of biological evolution are promoted, as before, by the serious errors arising from a mistaken idea of entropy and interpretation of the second law. Because of these errors, inflated by visionaries-cum-dilettantes, many biophysicists neglect the works of Gibbs and the other classics. The fathers of postnonclassical science (which, in my view, is hardly related to science at all) have most probably made no serious study of physical chemistry and other fundamental works. Following in the steps of Kenneth Denbigh, I have recently devoted several publications to these matters.

​

Let me note that, generally speaking, Prigogine’s theory considers the production (generation) of entropy in the systems of any origin far from the state of equilibrium. In this situation, entropy (as interpreted by Prigogine) is not a function of state, if only because its differential is not full. It follows that in the general case, Prigogine’s evolutionary theory is kinetic but not thermodynamic.

​

We can see that there was a great deal of confusion in the 1970s situation.

​

I considered it sensible to deal with this issue using the thermodynamic method proposed by Gibbs.

​

This, of course, involved examining the origin and evolution of the well-known hierarchical structure of living matter from the stand of thermodynamics.

​

First, one wanted to try and comprehend the process of the origin and formation of structural hierarchies within the framework of approximate quasi-equilibrium models (condition 1). Second, and this appeared difficult, there was need to find a way (providing it existed) to identify quasi-closed systems — subsystems in open living systems (condition 2).

​

These two conditions had to be met to make a full use, even with a certain approximation, of the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics — its variation principles.

​

An important explanation is in order here for the sake of clarity.

​

In the course of research, it is often expedient to make a distinction between the thermodynamics of processes and the thermodynamics of systems.

​

Processes in systems of any type, including open ones, can proceed under equilibrium (quasi-equilibrium) regimes. Research chemists and technologists are well aware of this. Many chemical quasi-equilibrium processes in industry are implemented in flowing (open) systems — reactors, under a regime called a stationary state. At each point in time, equilibrium between the reagents and the products of reaction is often practically achieved in such reactors (ideal reactors). This is connected, of course, with the striving of, for example, the Gibbs (or Helmholtz) function towards minimum as a result of the process under consideration. Obviously, such an open system — the contents of the reactor — does not evolve in terms of the stability of the composition of matter at input (entrance) and at output (exit). At certain times, something like this could also be expected during the progress of many biochemical processes in a living organism. However, under this assumption (the use of this model), one cannot assert that the organism itself — a thermodynamic system — changes its composition at the times indicated, that is, evolves towards minimization of the Gibbs function of the system proper. This is also true of any subsystem of an organism — a preset hierarchy of structures.

​

To minimize the Gibbs function of organism — a living system — must, even if with a certain approximation, be considered as closed or, to be more precise, quasi-closed system! Such a system must be regarded as non-stationary. A non-stationary flowing chemical reactor, in which the products of reaction collect, can also be regarded as a partially quasi-closed system (in my terms, a kinetically quasi-closed system). In this case, the accumulation of reaction products in the reactor is connected with the Gibbs (Helmholtz) function minimization at the expense of the progress of the process, which results in a change of the contents of the reactor, that is, of the system itself. These examples stress the fact that in each individual case, it is absolutely necessary to clearly comprehend the situation of interest to us and, whenever necessary, to distinguish between the thermodynamics of processes and the thermodynamics of systems.

​

On the whole, one must bear in mind that any model is precise only by definition. Depending on the study goals and objectives, science uses different models. The choice of a model is also determined by the examined hierarchy of structures (molecules, supramolecular formations, organisms, populations, etc.), the choice of a time scale, the size of the studied segment of space, and some other factors.

​

Thus, in the case of the study of processes in systems which do not exchange matter with the environment (closed or isolated systems), the concepts of thermodynamics of processes and systems coincide. These definitions, however, describe different cases when the matter at issue is an open or even a quasi-closed system.

​

Having completed this digression, I would like to get back to the main idea of this paper.

​

I was well aware that comprehending the phenomenon of life would become much easier if the processes of the formation of structural hierarchies of biological matter are considered on different time scales. Here, the reference was, in fact, to building a kinetic thermodynamics of different-time scale processes close to the state of equilibrium. The methods of kinetic thermodynamics could be used to study, on each concrete time scale, the relevant non-stationary structure formation processes in terms of the changes of the function of state (changes in the degree of advancement of processes or the extent of processes). The model was to imply that the differentials of the functions under consideration are, with an acceptable approximation, full. Of course, kinetic thermodynamics is unable to make conclusions on the molecular mechanisms of phenomena. One could study, at the same time, the change in the extent of structure-formation processes or changes in the thermodynamic stability of living structures in the processes of ontogenesis and phylogenesis.

​

It would be pertinent to note here that, in terms of the general mechanism, the evolution of natural biological structures is avalanche-condensation structure formation — a phenomenon opposite, as regards direction, to branching processes, which, for instance, take place during the electric gas discharge or branching chemical and nuclear reactions. In a sense, life resembles a gravitational collapse uniting small-scale structures into large bodies.

​

With a view to building a physical evolutionary biological theory, I postulated the existence of different-scale relaxation times when imagined equilibriums are achieved between elementary structures inside different hierarchies. In other words, reference was to the times of the establishment of actually unattainable (if only because of the heterogeneous character of the systems) imagined equilibriums (e.g., chemical, supramolecular, and sociological) between elementary structures inside any set hierarchy. Considered as structural hierarchies were hierarchies of molecules, macromolecules, cells, organisms, populations, etc.). These intuitive surmises appeared quite spontaneously, probably as a result of systematic consideration of the conditions required to apply the principles of classical thermodynamics to complex constantly renovated heterogeneous hierarchical systems.

​

It was also assumed that the processes of formation of each higher hierarchy from lower-hierarchy structures were weakly non-equilibrium (quasi-equilibrium transitions) that resembled the phase transition of first-order chemical substance from the state of overcooling.

​

If these assumptions were correct, the routes for system and process thermodynamics were open.

​

As I have already noted, the separation of the times of imagined relaxation (the idea I used in my early works) of different-hierarchy systems enabled me to draw important conclusions. They pertained to the possibility of an independent study of hierarchical structure-formation processes (processes occurring inside each temporal hierarchy) in living systems. At certain times, these systems could be regarded as quasi-closed. However, data on such imagined relaxation were, of course, not available. And, although the model itself was, in principle, correct in terms of physics, it could not be easily comprehended. In any case, such a model required more detailed explanations even for a well-prepared reader. Running ahead, I will say that only after a great deal of search and reflection did I manage to discover, as it now seems to many scientists, a remarkably simple universal law of nature — the law of temporal hierarchies. Nature itself constructed, introduced from the outside, the law of division (through strong inequalities) of the average life spans of self-reproducing structures belonging to different hierarchies. However, I completely understood this several years later!

​

The better to understand the problem that existed at that time, let me make another digression.

​

The law of temporal hierarchies (which some researchers began to call Gladyshev’s law) can be presented as a series of strong inequalities. The direction of this series is towards increasing the average life spans of structures at transition from lower to higher structures. In the simplest case, this law can be presented as:

​

<< << << << << . (1)
where ( ) is the average life (existence) span of the organism’s molecules (chemical compounds) taking part in metabolism; ( ) is the average life span of any intermolecular (supramolecular) structures of the organism’s tissues renovated in the process of its growth and development; is the average life span of the organism in the population; and is the average life span of the population. For the sake of simplicity and clarity, I intentionally omit to include in the series of strong inequalities (1) the life span of a cell and some other complex supramolecular structures. Needless to say, this series (determined by the presence of metabolism in the world of living matter) accords well with reality and reflects the existence of temporal hierarchies in living systems. This rigorously substantiates the possibility of identifying (separating) quasi-closed systems (subsystems) belonging to different temporal (structural) hierarchies in open biological systems. Let me note that each type (species) of organisms is characterized by its own average life span values for different-type hierarchies. However, series (1) is observed for each organism species.

​

The series of times of imagined relaxation of different-hierarchy structures postulated in 1976 had an opposite direction as compared to series (1). Nevertheless, as was noted above, both these series gave reason to make a conclusion on the possibility of identifying quasi-closed systems in open biological objects. I believe there is a profound link between the directions of these series of the times of imagined relaxation and the life span of different-hierarchy structures. The sources of this link can, I believe, be identified on a statistical basis for an ideal structural hierarchical model. In any case, I can perceive a simple route towards comprehending the existence of this link.

​

The next step was to coordinate (first of all, at molecular, as well as at supramolecular level) the known facts of evolutionary biology with the predictions of the thermodynamic model. The model allowed that the two above-mentioned conditions (for realizing in full the variation principles of thermodynamics) must be fulfilled with good enough approximation.

​

The existence of different time scales (condition 2), on which, I believed, one could observe quasi-equilibrium processes (condition 1) of the formation of higher hierarchies from lower-hierarchy structures, appeared practically self-evident to me. Nevertheless, I was sometimes consumed by doubts: it was so difficult to use the average times of imagined relaxation of structure-forming processes, in which elementary structures of the same hierarchical level but of different origin took part.

​

Back in 1976, when preparing my first work for publication, I had to find experimental proof of the effectiveness of classical (quasi-equilibrium) thermodynamics when describing the evolution of open living systems (in which I had learnt to identify quasi-closed systems). How could such proof be found? I remember reasoning in the following manner. If the above-mentioned division existed (a series of strong inequalities), one can study structure-formation processes inside each hierarchy independently of the structure-formation processes inside the other hierarchies. As I later realized on many occasions, this consideration was in line with the experience of physics and did not provoke any doubts. This conviction was greatly promoted by the works of Academicians Nikolai N. Bogolyubov and Leonid I. Sedov.

​

The systems (subsystems) singled out by nature itself (in accordance with the law of temporal hierarchies) and studied by me could, at certain times, be regarded as quasi-closed (the term itself was introduced by me somewhat later). The evolution of such systems of long enough stages should proceed in the direction of diminishing Gibbs function (Gibbs’s free energy) or Helmholtz function (Helmholtz’s free energy) of the systems proper. But how could this be proved? At that time, there were no data on the minimization of these functions at the aging (evolutionary development) of biological tissues of living beings in ontogenesis (as well as in phylogenesis). Carrying on my reasoning (the course of which was often controversial and tortuous), I became convinced that if the specific value of the Gibbs function of the formation of supramolecular structures of an organisms’ tissues (some identified tissue volume) in ontogenesis must decrease, the chemical composition of these tissues must change in accordance with the age of the living organism.

​

As I pointed out above, the law of temporal hierarchies makes it possible to identify, in open biological systems, quasi-closed thermodynamic systems (subsystems) and to study their development (ontogenesis) and evolution (phylogenesis) by studying the change in the specific (per unit of volume or mass) value of the Gibbs function of the formation of the given higher hierarchical structure from lower-level structures. It was established that in the process of ontogenesis (as well as phylogenesis and evolution generally), the specific value of the Gibbs function of the formation of supramolecular structures of an organisms’ tissues, strives toward minimum:

​

(2)
where V is the volume of the system; m is the mass of the identified microvolumes; x, y, z are coordinates; symbol - means that value is specific (relating to macrovolume); and symbol ~ stresses the heterogeneous character of the system. Let me note that correlation (2) implies taking account of intermolecular interactions in all hierarchical structures of biological tissue (intra- and extra-cellular interactions). This is fully justified, since structural hierarchy does not always coincide with temporal hierarchy. Thus, some types of cells do not divide (according to current views) and, like organs, age along with the organism. However, for any supramolecular hierarchy (j-1) there exists some higher (j+) hierarchy, so that << , where and are the average life spans (life times) of elementary structures of the corresponding structural hierarchies in a living system, = 0, 1, 2, etc.

​

This change of the chemical composition must take the direction prescribed by the second law (under its classical definition proposed by Clausius and Gibbs), on which my model rested! Something like this could be expected in phylogenesis. General physicochemical considerations made one assume that the change of these functions of state of the living systems will be connected, for the most part, with the spontaneous replacement of water (a relatively low-melting substance) in an organism’s tissues by predominantly high-melting supramolecular structures. Such structures are formed in organisms with participation of lipids, proteins, nucleic acids, and other organic and inorganic components. I was well aware that, knowing the melting point of supramolecular structures (which I called, at that time, intermolecular structures), was not enough for an exact and correct evaluation of their thermodynamic stability. It was, nevertheless, obvious that the existence of even a rough approximate correlation between these parameters could be sufficient to make the general qualitative conclusions I needed.

​

It should probably be noted again that it was necessary to consider the minimization of the specific value of the Gibbs function (or the Helmholtz function) of the formation of supramolecular structures in relation to a unit of volume (or mass) of biological tissue or a whole organism in ontogenesis, or the tissues of the type of living beings that evolved in the course of phylogenesis. I pointed out this circumstance in the previous digression, which discussed correlation (2). To some researchers, this point of view seemed unexpected and perhaps insufficiently justified. But I could discern no other approach. The thing is that living objects are complex polyhierarchical heterogeneous structures. This being so, in most cases it is, of course, impossible to identify any kinetically independent interacting particles. In such cases, statistical thermodynamics is practically impotent. Besides, this conviction of mine was connected with something Gibbs said and I remembered. This genius emphasized that he developed statistical thermodynamics (of ideal systems) solely for substantiating phenomenological thermodynamics! It followed that in that situation, phenomenological thermodynamics was alone able to cope with the problem. I realized that phenomenological thermodynamics (a black box) can help to easily achieve the inevitably necessary averaging of the parameters whose change determines the direction and the degree of completeness of development processes in the living world. Later, I rigorously substantiated the justice of this step, which at first sight had appeared risky.

​

I will not dwell on many other assumptions and original approaches which later proved correct and were theoretically substantiated. I will only point out some of the assumptions I used. They included the ideas regarding the justice of identifying lower-level thermodynamic subsystems functioning inside similar higher subsystems; the assumption on the possibility of averaging the environmental parameters that vary in the adaptive zone of an organisms’ life; the idea on the usefulness of the analogue of the Gibbs — Helmholtz approximate equation in a comparative assessment of the stability of supramolecular structures with different compositions. However, even then, in 1976, it was clear that the use of numerous surmises and assumptions was a sine qua not for developing an evolutionary thermodynamic model of the gradual transition of chemical into biological evolution, as well as a physical model of the development of living nature. It was also obvious to me that all assumptions must not contradict the general laws of nature. The lodestar here was Gibbs’s theory. I never forgot that my approximate model must never even slightly contradict Gibbs’s strict theory.

​

Thus, my thermodynamic (even if an averaged, approximate) model, should it prove correct, pointed unequivocally to the necessary existence of a variation of the chemical composition of living beings in the process of ontogenesis and phylogenesis (evolution). I am ashamed to confess that at that time, I did not even suspect that reliable data in this area were available. Having realized this, within minutes I was leafing through reference books and encyclopedias, where I discovered the required information. Indeed, the average (brutto) chemical composition of living bodies (organisms and their tissues) reliably changed in the direction predicted by the theory both in ontogenesis and phylogenesis. The most significant changes were those in composition during embryonic development of organisms.

​

This is how I realized I was moving in the right direction.
I now had to check (even if only for my own satisfaction) the conclusions prompted by the theory with many segments of natural sciences. Occasionally, I had doubts (usually regarding details) which made the required coordination difficult. In such cases, coordination presented many problems. Nevertheless, they were gradually resolved, and doubts were dispelled and disappeared! Eventually, this ceased to surprise me, since I reminded myself that as far as it was applicable, thermodynamics always produces a correct result, providing the assumptions are correct.

​

After the prediction of classical thermodynamics (my hierarchical thermodynamics) on the variation of the chemical composition during the evolutionary development of living beings had proved true, everything was grist to the powerful thermodynamic mill in which I had believed since my youth. I shall never forget the moment when I realized my prediction was correct. Incidentally, these variations of the chemical composition of living beings later helped me to apply the equilibrium chromatography model to living (open) objects and to formulate the principle of chemical stability of substance. This principle (presented as a figure in my first publication) was extended to all the hierarchies of living matter and called the principle of stability of substance. It enabled me to use an experimental base to substantiate my macro- or hierarchical thermodynamic. Later, I singled out a separate research field I called supramolecular thermodynamics from macrothermodynamics.

​

I believe that the principle of stability of substance — the feedback (Gladyshev’s principle) — is applicable to all biological systems (belonging to different hierarchies). It boils down to the following: during the formation (self-assembly) of the most thermodynamically stable structures at the highest hierarchical level (j), e.g., the supramolecular level, in accordance with the second law Nature spontaneously uses predominantly (available for the given local part of the biological system) the least thermodynamically stable structures belonging to a lower level, for example, the molecular level (j-1). The justice of the principle is proved on a quantitative basis as applied to the molecular and supramolecular structural levels of biological tissues. There are also facts that corroborate the application of the principle to social hierarchies. Thus, if one proceeds from the stand of hierarchical thermodynamics of complex systems, one can comprehend the age-old social management methods, such as divide and rule.

​

Macrothermodynamics has already made important discoveries not only as regards applications to the evolution of chemical and supramolecular hierarchies of living matter, but also in the field of sociology!

​

Like an overwhelming majority of other scientific theories, the thermodynamic theory of the origin of life, biological evolution, and the aging of living beings should, of course, be regarded as approximate (I have already mentioned this). However, it makes it possible to use a foundation of physics (at least qualitatively) to rigorously explain many facts connected with the evolution of living nature. What is more, this theory helps make important predictions pertaining to biology and medicine generally, including gerontology, dietetics, and other theoretical and practical fields. Thus, using physicochemical evaluations, it is easy to compile gerontologically valuable (anti-aging) diets, nutritional supplements, and drugs helping to significantly extend the duration of healthy human life. One can also assume that the use of such diets will help increase the overall human life span.

​

It follows from the thermodynamic theory that during the formation of supramolecular structures, changes in the specific value of the Gibbs function (as well as the associated values of the food gerontological value index - GPGi ) can be easily measured from an approximate correlation, which some authors have begun to call the Gibbs — Helmholtz — Gladyshev equation. This equation is an analogue of the classical approximate Gibbs — Helmholtz equation. Thus, as applied to natural lipids and oils, one can write down:

​

, (3)
where is the specific value of the Gibbs function (specific free energy) of the formation of the condensed state of substance i; and are the changes in specific enthalpy and specific entropy during the solidification of natural lipids (oils); is the melting or pour (hardening) point, is standard temperature (e.g., 25, 0, -25, -50 ), at which values (and, consequently indicator GPGi ) are compared. Value (according to a number of author’s patents) must be lower than value . When measuring the gerontological value of a food, the choice of is determined by the melting point of the least fusible substance in the series of foods under comparison. It is assumed that low fusible substances take part in the formation of corresponding fusible (usually relatively unstable) supramolecular structures in an organism’s tissues.

​

Let me note that the Gibbs — Helmholtz equation is correct for a substance in a closed system, in which chemical, phase, and other transformations can take place.

​

The analogue of this equation can often be applied, with good approximation, to various substances of the same type and to variable composition systems. I productively used the Gibbs — Helmholtz equation and its analogue (3) to determine the thermodynamic direction of evolutionary processes. These correlations, practically by reserve, were applied by Paul Flory and are still used by many authors in the study of synthetic copolymers, biological polymers, and a number of other variable composition systems.

​

It follows from equation (3) that we should frequently observe, with acceptable approximation, a correlation between (calculated for standard temperature) and the pour (melting) point of lipids or oils, . Needless to say, this correlation must be observed between the anti-aging (gerontological) value indicator for the food in question, GPGi, and . Indeed such a correlation does exist. All the conclusions based on the theory accord with the experience of medicine and dietetics.

​

A separate matter is the frequent questions of the following type: which theory is correct — the universally accepted theory of Charles Darwin or the well known but little recognized theory of J.B. Lamarck? Let me note that unlike the former, the latter asserted that the characters acquired by individuals in their lifetime can be inherited, that is, passed down to descendants.

​

The question formulated above is not complete, and in terms of the macrothermodynamic theory, not even correct! Asking such questions, one must specify, not only the characters in question, but also the conditions of observation, first of all, set the time scale in which we want to make these observations. If there is no indication of the period (interval of time), over which we want to study some processes or others (biological phenomena and processes are no exception), formulating such questions is often pointless.

​

The various processes of transmission of genetic (as well as practically not inherited) information unfold on different time scales. These (often gradually changing) time scales may differ by many orders of magnitude. This theory-based conclusion open up a broad scope for the study of genetics from the stand of dynamic thermodynamics of the accumulation and transmission of inherited (thermodynamic) characters of living beings in the process of evolution.

​

I published my first (difficult to comprehend) work on the thermodynamics of biological evolution as a preprint at the USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of Physical Chemistry (1977), and then in the Journal of Theoretical Biology (J. Theor. Biol., 1978). Publication became possible thanks to the support of Dr. James F. Danielli, FRS, editor-in-chief of three leading international scientific journals. He was, without question, an outstanding 20th-century biologist and physical chemist, who proposed the first model of a biological membrane. Being a brilliant physical chemist, Jim Danielli immediately grasped the main points of the theory. The article was published despite the negative reviews by some distinguished scientists. But some physical chemists were on my side. Of special importance to me was the support of the famous Gustaf Arrhenius, member of the Swedish Academy of Sciences. Even later, this scientist, who possessed encyclopedic knowledge, expressed a great deal of interest in my research and made it a point to introduce me to the circle of his friends and colleagues. My numerous discussions with outstanding scientists in San Diego (California, USA) were invariable very useful. There is no doubt they helped me streamline my theory.

​

I eventually realized that even many years after my first publication, few of my colleagues and even future coauthors were truly aware of the prospects opened up by this step. That was, undoubtedly, mostly my fault: at that time, I failed to make a clear enough exposition of the foundations of my theory — something, I flatter myself, I am now able to do. As I see it now, my theory contained many unexpected and truly novel concepts, which required more detailed explanations lacking in my first work. Also, at that time I had no suspicion of and gave no thought to what my work may lay claim to. As far as I know, some colleagues of mine and the few former coauthors (who became interested in the problem of equilibrium of biochemical processes in living systems) have not yet mastered the main points of the streamlined version of my theory. Thus, some of them have not grasped the need to introduce the concept of the existence of quasi-closed systems in the biological world. This indicates that the considered issues pertaining to the main problems of the Universe have proved too complicated and involved.

​

However, some time later, the outstanding physical chemist Kenneth G. Denbigh, FRS), who familiarized himself with my overly wordy works (overloaded with irrelevant information) also saw a grain in truth in the details of the theory, which at that time was far from clearly formulated. This distinguished scientist is a pioneer and founder of non-equilibrium thermodynamics, the father of the kinetics of open systems and the modern doctrine of chemical equilibrium, a researcher who (following the steps of R. Boyle and R. Liesegang) discovered a number of spatial-temporal periodic chemical reactions, as well as some other interesting phenomena. Needless to say, such recognition meant a great deal to me. Somewhat later, Dr. Kenneth Denbigh personally edited a relatively long English-language synopsis of one of my monographs (1988). I believe that Denbigh had confidence in the main concepts of my theory and carefully analyzed my thermodynamic studies. Here, I was done a good service by my simple paper on the physicochemical evolution of planetary systems, which predicted the existence of rings around Uranus and Neptune. This famous scientist wrote to me that this work had given him indescribably delight.

​

For a quarter century, I retained up my interest in this problem, pondering, revising, and as far as was possible, streamline my theory. The going was not easy. I had to specify the new concepts and definitions introduced by me. Besides, most of my colleagues — highly trained professional researchers — had neither the time not opportunity to go into the details of my work, which contained many assumptions that required thinking over, and to offer advice. Nevertheless, I gradually streamlined my theory, working practically single-handed. I acted in conformity with Karl Popper’s belief that any theory that lays claim to viability needs evolutionary development. I have to note, however, that many friends of mine, who are distinguished scientists, had grasped the core of the matter and had confidence in my ideas basing themselves on general considerations. They gave me moral support, which was always very important to me. The names of these people are listed in the preface to my recently published short monograph (2003).

​

In the past few years, the situation has been changing quite noticeably. To my joy, a number of outstanding scientists grasped and, as it were, developed a feeling for the key points of my theory. This was probably promoted by the obvious formulation of the law of temporal hierarchies, which did not require serious explanations. As I have already repeatedly emphasized, the existence of different-scale temporal hierarchies in the biological world gives grounds for identifying quasi-closed systems within open living systems. This important circumstance is easily understood by trained researchers. At present, the law of temporal hierarchies (formulated by me over years of studies) gradually came to be perceived as something self-evident. It is far too simple! Some of my colleagues began to offer important advice and popularize my ideas to the best of their ability! This is why I hope the theory will soon become widely accepted by the younger generation. I am convinced that my studies will assist the choice between the ideas of creationism pertaining to the origin of life, and science in favor of the latter. The theory must be further developed and streamlined. A great deal of work and, I hope, many important predictions still lie ahead. But I have no doubt that this theory will always rest on the universal laws of nature and the works of classical natural sciences.

​

It took a great deal of time and effort to build the foundations of the thermodynamic theory of the origin of life, biological evolution, and the aging of living beings. And even for me, the general conclusions prompted by it proved, in a measure, staggering. How did I manage to create this uncontroversial and, in my view, universal theory? It is hardly possible to answer this question definitely and briefly. Although the reason for my modest success is connected mainly with important circumstances, I firmly believed in the justice of the universal laws of nature and was determined to follow the route of the great scientific schools going back many centuries. I would also like to note that during my youth in Alma-Ata I was surrounded by many wonderful people, my teachers. They were boundlessly devoted to science and did everything in their power, sometimes to their own detriment, to be of service to others, especially young researchers, whom they treated as colleagues. That was the environment which helped my shape an optimistic world view, which I inherited from my parents and still retain. The positive charge accumulated during my childhood and youth helped me cope with the hardships I encountered in Moscow.

​

In conclusion, I want to say a few words about the connection of my theory with problems of the Universe (Creation).
One of the definite general conclusions of my theory is, I now believe, as follows.

​

I managed to prove on a rigorous scientific foundation that, according to the predictions of Galileo, Maxwell, Darwin and other classics of the physical sciences, the known universal laws of nature operate at all level of organization of organic and inorganic matter. I am convinced that these laws predetermine the natural origin and development of living beings in many parts of the Universe. In accordance with the philosophy of the founders of the natural sciences, life (the different forms of its manifestation) is an inalienable component of the evolution of matter.

​

It follows from the above that the thermodynamic theory leaves no room for creationism, unless, of course, it is only the creation of living beings that is associated with this notion (this sometimes happens). This does not mean, however, that science is omnipotent and that it leaves no reasonable niche to spirituality — faith and religion, which cannot be scientifically substantiated. If the term creationism designates the religious doctrine of the divine creation of the initial, once arisen World, the dispute between such religious creationism and science can hardly be settled. In any case, for people, including educated persons, there is no definite (concrete) answer to the question How did the World originate and why do these universal laws of nature, introduced from the outside and known to us, exist? Such questions are also unlikely to be answered in any definite way!

​

Separate publications

​

Gladyshev G. P. Supramolecular thermodynamics is a key to understanding phenomenon of life. What is Life from a Physical Chemist's Viewpoint, Second Ed.: Regular and Chaotic Dynamics; Moscow-Izhevsk, 2003; 144 p. (In Russian).

​

Gladyshev G.P. Hierarchical Thermodynamics and Direction of Evolution of Open Systems. In: Synthesis and Modification of Polymers. Moscow, Chemistry Editor Yu. B. Monakov. 2003, pp.6-27. (In Russian) .

​

Gladyshev G.P. Macrothermodynamics of biological evolution and ageing. Physical chemical dietology // Bulletin (Izvestiya) of International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, December, 2003. (In Russian) .

​

Gladyshev G.P. Gerontology and physico-chemical dietology // Uspekhy Gerontologii. Russian Academy of Sciences, August, 2003. (In Russian) .
Gladyshev G.P. Thermodynamics of living system evolution, entropy and Gibbs free energy // Bulletin (Vestnik) of Kazakhstan National University, Chemistry, 2 (30), 2003. pp. 22-27. (In Russian) .

​

Gladyshev G. P. On one reason of some basic errors in modern biophysics // Bulletin (Izvestiya) of International Higher Education Academy of Sciences, December, 2003. (In Russian) .

​

Gladyshev G.P. On the principle of Substance Stability and Thermodynamic Feedback in Hierarchic System of Bioworld // Biology Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 1. 2002, pp. 1-4.

​

Gladyshev G.P.. Thermodynamic theory of evolution of living beings. M. Luch, 1996. 86.(In Russian).

​

Gladyshev G.P. Thermodynamics and macrokinetics of natural hierarchical processes . M. Nauka, 1988. 287.(In Russian) .
Gladyshev G.P. Hierarchical thermodynamics. M.: The Chemical Encyclopedia, vol. 4, 1995, pp. 1062-1064. (In Russian) .

​

Gladyshev G.P. Macrothermodynamics of Biological Evolution . Aging of Living Beings // International Journal of Modern Physics B (World Scientific). 2004. March.

​

Gladyshev G.P. Thermodynamic self-organization as a mechanism of hierarchical structures formation of biological matter // Progress in Reaction Kinetics and Mechanism (An International Review Journal. UK, USA). 2003. Vol. 28. pp. 157-188.

​

Gladyshev G.P. The Hierarchical Equilibrium Thermodynamics of Living Systems in Action // SEED Journal. 2002. 3. pp. 42-59. (Toborsky E., Co-editor of SEED. Editorial, 3. pp. 1-2). Error 404 | University of Toronto Libraries.

​

Gladyshev G.P. Thermodynamics of biological evolution and aging // Electron. J. Math. Phys. Sci. 2002. Sem. 2. pp. 1-15. http://www.ejmaps.org.

​

Gladyshev G.P. On the Thermodynamics, Entropy and Evolution of Biological Systems: What is Life from a Physical Chemist's Viewpoint // Entropy. 1999. Vol. 1. . 2. pp. 9-20. http://www.mdpi.org/entropy.

​

Gladyshev G.P. Thermodynamic Theory of Biological Evolution and Aging . Experimental Confirmations of Theory // Entropy. 1999. Vol. 1. . 4. pp. 55-68. http://www.mdpi.org/entropy

​

Gladyshev G.P, Thermodynamics of Aging, In: 1998 AAAS Annual Meeting and Science Innovation Exhibition, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1998, Philadelphia, A-30, S-26.
Gladyshev G.P. Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Beings . N.Y.: Nova Sci. Publ. Inc., 1997.142 p.

​

Gladyshev G.P. A Motive Force of Biological Evolution // Herald of Russian Academy of Science, V. 64, 2.1994. pp. 118 - 124.

​

Gladyshev G. P. On the Thermodynamics of Biological Evolution // J. Theor. Biol., 1978, Vol. 75, pp. 425-444 (Preprint. Institute of Chemical Physics of Academy of Sciences of USSR, May 1977).

---

Dear Moose,
the review will contain said clarification at a "rewrite" I was planning on responding directly to Loudmouth instead showing how the quaternions' numbers may formally differentiate my own views as expressed rather quickly (I even impressed my self with that one post I must admit but that is what happens with quality communication with me (Gladyshev in personal email)(something like this happened as well on True Seekers when I first broke Denteeeeene "ice")from GPs but perhaps now that Lam and I are on good terms I should try to keep my own ideas out of it until others get the best grasp they can of GP Gladsyshev's work. We would be fools to not to try to value add at this time no matter our own personal feelings on the matter.{Inserted the blank lines between most of the paragraphs (Brad's indentations didn't translate to the display form, and the blank lines were needed anyway). Also inserted blank lines between the references, and touched up other formatting a bit - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-29-2004][This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-29-2004][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-30-2004]

Brad,In the second paragraph of your quote from Gladyshev (in the opening message of this thread) he seems to take seriously the creationist notion that the 2LT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) conflicts with abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. Of course, he doesn't agree with that notion, but he takes it seriously to the point that he responds as though the promoters of the idea are intellectually honest, a premise with which I seriously disagree. From this I gather that in Russia there must not be many fundamentalists of the sort we have here in America (and particularly in the Deep South) or he would realize that taking this notion seriously is foolish.That said, I fully concur with Gladyshev when he says:

quote:

---

They may then wish to go beyond (a), (b) and (c) and to assert that organisms somehow avoid the Second Law, even after allowing for their 'openness'.

---

Isn't that indeed what they try to do? They want to say that because abiogenesis conflicts with 2LT (which it doesn't), the fact that abiogenesis obviously occurred cannot be accounted for except by supernatural intervention. But this Gladyshev doesn't say. He seems to dance around saying it, but since he doesn't actually say it I am led to believe that he may not understand the nature of religious fundamentalism at least as it relates to scientific theories. What do you think?I followed the link to the article on 'Heirarchical Thermodynamics'; the information sounds interesting but the formulae presented go far beyond my comprehension. So does your second post in this thread.

GIANT quotes=Bad.

In most instances I would agree with you, Rand. But in this case Brad had made it quite clear that he intended to post that paper. The thread was opened and he did exactly what he had said he intended to do.

It's all part of being in the "Brad Zone". We in the admin let Brad get away with being Brad, while we don't give others the same luxury. That's the way it is.I was reluctant to advance Brad's topic, least this special treatment go to far. Well, the topic is now open to debate (I put it in the "Free For All" for lack of a better idea) - I haven't a clue of what's going to happen from here.If people wish to discuss the way Brad is, I suggest you take it to either Brad McFall or Is Brad McFall a fruitcake or what?.Adminnemooseus

---

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

I have actually referred to this or acutally quoted something smaller than this in the past here on EvC and I will be happy to search for this post assuming it was not one of those that got canned as the posting policy has been slowly changing. My guess is that Georgi had seen this before.

quote:

---

It follows from the above that the thermodynamic theory leaves no room for creationism, unless, of course, it is only the creation of living beings that is associated with this notion (this sometimes happens). This does not mean, however, that science is omnipotent

---

(this is in the bottom of the long quote above). There is a bit of ligusitic use on GP's part that interacts "organism" and "being" that makes it difficult to interpret this particular 'notion' (outside of the causal reality (as a creationist might)) but I hope I can clear up something this simple as reading the verb where there is obviously a plethora of nouns. I will try in response to Bb here. I did do what I said I was going to do and I think you might have missed what I noticed in another paper that Gladyshev sent me where he SPECIFICALLY *cites* this web site in support of his ideas. That is really WHY I began posting on the web becuase I wanted to see if ideas that were not going very far in the standard press might be able to influence the very way of doing science that seems not to use c/e to advance science itself. It is true that the CHOICE of creationism VS science lends ^much^ more to 'science' than 'creationism' and BOTH moose and I know this. I guess Buzz knows that% too. FilesOnly seems to have gotton this point fairly correctly in another thread. If science USES macrothermdynamics I dont think that GP would be averse to creationists who might build their disconinuty (in baraminology for instance) from with macrothermodynamics. I think this discpline is MORE restricted than Gould's notions of 'scaling to geological time' but that starts to get difficult to comprehend until one tries to work out in physcial terms just what systems and process can be defined either in creationism or evolutionism by using the signs Gladyshev (or others etc) have introduced. I have my own "system" where the 'process'(logical) might not match epistemically Gould+Gladyshev but that is what I will respond to Loudmouth or before on later. GP was kind enough to send me copies of papers where he made marginal notes that enable me to reconstruct his thought process but it will take some time for me to read through all of his nouns as the paper that is posted here is only a very small fraction of the material he has produced over the years and is merely an introduction.

I think you have somewhat fairly read what he meant. My problem before I recieved the package from Moscow was his association with the work of Denbigh but he has cleared this up for me in the marginal notes. If I recall correctly it probably was BECUASE I saw the passge you quoted and the idea that life could be creationistic (in the part I quoted to bluebird) if it did not get OUTSIDE the "macrothermodynamic" statics it matter HOW "openess" was defined. I am not ready to discuss my own ideas on this generally yet yet it REALLY DOES seem obvious to me that GOULD'S "structure" is actually (becuase he does not actually invest in any particular physico-chemsitry) to be BEYOND what is needed to POSSIBLY (I could be wrong) ameleorate c and E. I am fairly certain that GP does not have but by way of implication Farday's THERMAL CONTACT but expressing THAT as something between the statics invovled in the formalization of GPs work and statistical physics as interpreted by Einstein still was but the mere clock in the box I have recently spoken of. YOUS guys ARE at the limit of my research at the present time. Georgi responds to this I think in e-mail to me with an attachment on entropy but I am not at a computer that permits down loads at the present time. He said somewhere in the letters that the formalism could apply to anything so I guessed that would mean "nanotech" as well but again I need to spend a few sleepless nites on this before I can relate this ALL to my quick post that Loudmouth already responded to.

I read those threads, Moose, and I urge anyone else who doesn't understand Brad's posts do the same, particularly the thread Brad McFall. Not only will you come away knowing Brad a bit better than you do now, you'll also see a few examples of his very droll sense of humor.Don't quit reading after just a page or two. The best part of it all comes on page 3, but you need to have read what came before to fully understand it.

I've read through this thread again as well, and I have another question for you, Brad: Did Gladyshev only become aware of this creationist 2LT controversy because you sent him information about it and referred him to this website?

No, no....
Georgi has been developing his ideas many years before I was just a punk baby with spiked hair. I, like him however, AM interested in equilibrium approaches in theoretical biology which has NOT been the elite retrodiction of yesterdays. It looks like when GP re-thought his notions (whether by reading EvC or just talking with collegues) he noticed some little discussion we had given to it here and THEN included references to EvC (via Yahoo) in Progress in Reaction Kinetics and his new book (2003)in Russian -Izhevsk which he sent me containing 144 pages with an translated into English Abstract and Forword (EvC is mentioned similarly to the paper on page 143 of the book) which had the title in English - "Supramolecular Thermodynamics is a Key to Understanding Phenomenon of Life, Second Edition". I have no idea if EvC was mentioned in "the first" edition. His access to 'the controversy' seems to be by way of his attempts to translate his ideas into English and or converstions with congenial collegues but I really dont know, you would have to ask him, yourself. You might try to e-mail him at his website.The abstract included: "This monograph is dedicated to the exposition of the foundations of thermodynamic theory of biological evolution and aging of living beings. It is aimed at the reader with a natural science university eduation."...&..."The theory may be more fully grasped by professional researchers - physical chemists who are well versed in achievements in supramolecular chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, bioenergetics and biology overall. They will undoubtedly comprehend the monograph "at a glance"."The forward in this second edition included: "This theory has no analogues, but relies upon the achievements of classical natural science. All postulates and theoretical constructions suggested by the author correspond completely with the general laws of nature and, as a rule, agree with conclusions acknowledged in professional science. In any case, the reader will find nothing that would contradict the principle of well-known experimentally proven postulates and theoretical concepts. It contains no fantasies, inventions, unsubstantiated hypotheses or affirmations."****************************************************************
You might entertain the idea contra or not GPG that my, BSM, ideas have an invention or fantasy if one is willing to really try to understand what I have to say (some kind of said "affirmation") as you noted in the post above this one of yours, but no, it was all the other way around. I don't think that Georgi would be supporting Baraminology unless it was explictly shown to be discontinuous macrothermodynamically (which the Baraminology Study Group might acutally be able to do) but I dont really know that about him either. There has apparently been interest in macrothermo outside of what we have discussed here and this 2003 book seems to be in support of another title by Jean-Marie Lehn and collegues(Georgi did include the references in English as well as Russian in this second edition (at least)) ("Supramolecular Chemisty" Concepts and Perspectives 1995 Wenheim, New York, Basel, Cambridge, Tokyo 1995).

Brad McFall writes:

quote:

---

...before I was just a punk baby with spiked hair.

---

Hehe! That's an image of you that had not yet occurred to me.

quote:

---

His access to 'the controversy' seems to be by way of his attempts to translate his ideas into English and or converstions with congenial collegues but I really dont know, you would have to ask him, yourself.

---

No, no, you've answered my question. But this leads me to believe even more strongly that the sort of fundamentalism we have here doesn't exist in Russia, at least not significantly.This makes sense because before Communism Russia was primarily Orthodox. Orthodox faiths usually don't rely on strict biblical literalism as does American fundamentalism.

quote:

---

You might entertain the idea contra or not GPG that my, BSM, ideas have an invention or fantasy if one is willing to really try to understand what I have to say...

---

No, I don't think your ideas have anything to do with fantasy. I never did. I simply have trouble understanding them. The more I read of your posts, though, the more I DO understand. You always have something interesting and edifying to say; figuring out what that is can be challenging but it's also rewarding.

you'll see why I had allowed myself to be labeled with GP's word "fantasy" in my next post.Itis almost finished. Yes, you are correct that I do not entertain "fantasy" as in TV's 'fantasy island' or science fiction for the plain is mainly a plane indeed.

All of the ideas are here but there will be some "dark" edits. I was astonshied after working this up to read Provine on Wright. Will had no idea how to DO CALUCULATIONS on his own else he at least would not have kept a student like me from learning how do them. The same fate of my education, Gladyshev's work, and Wright's balance remains to receive its more proper due.REVIEWThe papers appeared and arrived in a well order which is unlike most aggregates of information on the/this topic. G.P.Gladyshev included,
a.)"THERMODYNAMICS OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION AND AGING Supramolecular thermodynamics is a key to understanding phenomena of life. What is life from a physical chemist's viewpoint"(2002)
b) "On the Principle of Substance Stability and Thermodynamic Feedback in Heirarchic Systems of Bioworld "(2002)
c) "On the reasons of some pricipal delusions in the modern biophysics(2004 in Russian with English abstraction)
d) "THERMODYNAMIC SELF-ORGANIZATION AS A MECHANISM OF HEIRARCHICAL STRUCTURE FORMATION OF BIOLOGICAL MATTER "(2003) in Progress In Reaction Kinetics and Mechanism An International Journal
e)MACROTHERMODYNAMICS OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION AGING OF LIVE BEINGS (2003) in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 18, 1-25
f)"On the History of Creation of the Thermodynamic Theory of the Origin of Life, Biological Evolution and the Aging of Living Beings" (2003) in a lecture at Universities and Academies
g)SUPRAMOLECULAR THERMODYNAMICS IS A KEY TO UNDERSTANING PHENOMENON OF LIFE (second edition, Moscow- Izhegvsk 2003 143pp.)I was quite grateful for the reciept of this papers as I had put my own marked up copy of his book on thermodynamics back in the recesses of my collection of papers, now it is no longer just a paper weight.I would like to say that (from " 'Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and the Life of ALBERT EINSTEIN")A braham Pias page5960 wrote"
****Einstein's position regarding questions of principle in statistical mechanics is best explained by first reviewing briefly the contributions of Maxwell and, especially, of Boltzmann. Gibbs will not enter into this review because he did not influence Einstein and also because, as Lorentz noted in Einstein's presence, the Einstein and Gibbs approaches are different (L2). Einstein did not disagree. Indeed, in responding to Lorentz's remark, he observed, '(My) point of view is characterized by the fact that one introduces the probability of a specific state in a phenomenological manner. In that way one has the advantage of not interposing any particular theory, for example, any statistical mechanics'(E44). His critical attitude to Boltzmann's approach, implied by this statement, will be discussed in Section 4d. One of the aims of this chapter is to explain what Einstein had in mind with his phenomenological approach.
*****In concluding this introduction, I note that the period of Einstein's activities concerning the foundations of statistical mechanics preceeded the appearance of the first papers in which it was noted that all was not well with Boltzmann's ergodic hypothesis. In what follows, I shall therefore have no occassion to make reference to ergodic theory."
I have not learned enough from GP's work to know that (that) this has no RELEVANCE for a considered constriction of SJ Gould's heriarchies to Gladyshev's time (for instance by way of Georgi's "For clarity, I note that there are many open geological systems in Nature that can be investigated by the quasi-equilibrium thermodynamic methods of quasi-closed systems. For example, the seperation of minerals (gold, quartz and so on) takes place in rivers under the action of gravitational forces)."( ref 1 abovep52) but I need:
i) a better handle on GPs cell ##########see-"Having appeared "in a place of its own," each new cell finds ##########itself surrounded by other cells in physiological (intercellular) ##########liquid. The other(previously fomed) cells and the physiological ##########environment are the habitat (thermostat in the physical sense of ##########the term) of the new cell. According to the parameters of the ##########habitat, the cell's genetic apparatus is "transformed": only certain ##########genes go into action. Another division follows, and the new cells ##########recieve a new command from its thermostat, etc."p178 of reference d above.ii) theory vs theories
^^^^^^^^^for instance (Delta)G vs "relevant" change in entropy I first ^^^^^^^^^approach by reading GP's "Let us visualize a glass fileed with a ^^^^^^^^^diluted aqueous solution containing certain inorganic and organic ^^^^^^^^^substances. The organic compounds may include alchohols, acids, ^^^^^^^^^lipids, peptides, sugars and nitrogen bases. Let us add activated ^^^^^^^^^charcoal or some other sorbent...The substances that form the most ^^^^^^^^^stable supramolecular structures (which emerge as a result of interactions ^^^^^^^^^marked by the most negative or the least positive bavle, (delta)G^supra at ^^^^^^^sorbtion) will be characterized by relatively heightened sorption(distribution) ^^^^^^constant values"(Macrothermodynamics of Biological Evoltion Aging of Living ^^^^^^^^Beings in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 18 2004 1-25) = = ^^^^^^^^Newton's "Now the smallest Particles of Matter may cohere by the strongest ^^^^^Attractions, and compose bigger Particles or weaker Virtue; and many of these ^^^^^^may cohere and compose bigger Particles whose Virtue is still weaker, and so ^^^^^^on for divers Successions, until the Progression end in the biggest Particles on ^^^^^^which the Operations in Chymistry, and the Colours of natural Bodies depend, ^^^^^^^and which by cohering compose Bodies of sensible Magnitude. If the Body is ^^^^^compact, and bends or yields inward to Pression without any sliding of its Parts ^^^^^^^^^it is hard and elastick, returning to its Figure with a Force rising from the ^^^^^mutual attraction of its Parts. If the Parts slide upon one another, the Body is ^^^^^malleable or soft. If they slip easily, and are of a fit Size to be agitated by Heat, ^^^^and the Heat is big enough to keep them in Agitation, the body is fluid; and if it ^^^^^be apt to stick to things, it is humid; and the Drops of every fluid affect a round ^^^^^^^Figure by the mutual Attraction of its parts by Gravity." Opticks(Book III Part I ^^^^^^^^^Fourth Corrected Edition)
iii) GP marginalized additonally in the Physics B article ref b above such that I will be able to sort out the claim of Wolfram that there is a necessary relation of the principle of equivalent sophistication and computational irreducibility while a full differential is not used. I will save this for another time as I seek to incorporate Collets use of reverse lexicographic orderings in terms of entropy in life, in the simple program of Wolfram no matter the thing of the higher order catastrophe set that may still be grammetalogically but not lexically if true plurivocal, with the same. It may be neceesary to to a little actual Husserlian philosophy here. I just don't know. There is NO "phil's bull" as Provine said however. I am also uncertain that the nonalgorthemic brain nature as interpreted by GP sufficiently (it might necessarily) fits macrothermodynamcialy if only for the assumtion of "supersaturation". THERE IS NO LINKAGE TO GOULDS IDEA ON THISPOINT BECUASE HE IS SIMPLY AREGUIJNG (IF) A REPTILE BRAIN COULD OUT COMPETE A MAMMAL not what is acutlaly going on in the difference of cold-vs warm blooded brains. Gladyshev had in ref(e) "The discused model should not provoke opposition from physicochemists. It is in accord with brain plasticity as interpreted by Penrose, who regards the brain as a fomration that resembles a computer which is continually changing, taking account of the feedback that arises between the system proper and the environement...I am convinced, however, that these physical processes, which are apparently non-algorithmic, hold also be governed by the laws of macrothermodynamics!" (here is where GG distinguishes between 'processes' and "laws").GP was kind enough to marginalize THE TREND"" to some state OF NEWTONS' FIT SIZE. That was enough for me. The detail this tends to for me is the disequilbrium of supdiploid vs supradiploid cell popultions corelated with states"" of cell death. If someone like Dengbigh thought it worth his or like person's while to philosophically stave off my notions, then it may be possible to not need to reach the level of detail where I will try to implement the quarterions' four real numbers into molecular biology, but it might ALSO be true that Husserl got some of his philosophy from general conversation that Cantor may have been talking infinitely about, at large, in Halle, Gemany hoping to get beyond the local teaching of his classes someday that never happened before "phenomenology".
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is true that I have not tried to rigourously apply Boltzmann but this is in part out of derision wrongly towards Provine who said what I said about Boltzmann, how the cell cuts (Croizat), and vitalism was "random" more than any scholarship phenomenlogical or otherwise transfinite to have said nothing. It is certainly true that there is a "delusion" among biophysicists as GP put it when they insist on fancy nonsensical formula to be applied without trying to simply find in the literature the connection back to Boltzmann for instance. My own reading now tends to wend back to Galvani-Volta so it is not true that I can legitamately avoid Gladyshev's censure or admonition. I do have a little room however if I try to take Polikinthorne to heart (over Hoyle's carbon for instance) as to Dirac and equational beauty IN EINSTEIN'S TO BOHRS' boxed clock. The question will be can Gould's stair case be UNPACKAGED from Macrothermodynamics and leave both the "moderns"(Glaydshev) and multipleuniversalists(Polikthorne) behind EVEN IF CREATIONISM SUFFERS.from a linguistic restriction on Gould's conceptualizing what may simply be the matter of the post 1900 view point only while biology still suffers with the GP pointed question of LamarkvsDarwin recognizing however that this is badly formulated problem set in terms of the means to unpack no matter the philosophy.Because while I had thought that Quantum Entanglement was likely tending to a noncreationist state Pothorne said otherwise however he did not mention Bridgman's "operationalism" only 'gluons' in the notion of life making itself which I suspected played against both or either of me and someone else when Wolfram wanted to be part of the experimental math trend and Kervran's THOUGHT so as unrecognized as the lunatic Croizat was NOT fringed as/because I have a suspicion that France's F.Collet of 4 rue Mayet 75006 Paris can not be left out of this "picture".The operational critic of this thread would/could leverge Lewontin's lack of understanding of topobiology (by proping Gould's use of the word "catastrophe"?) (in the TRIPLE HELIX) into Gladyshev's cell and aging DATA to get back the notion of the closed system in the hox genic molecular biology on my opening of the process of actually having such systematically or one of the readers own designed devising. I hold a particular bias to one way functions (vs two way) but this does not seem to be necessarily for multiple universe physicists, Kripke, and possibly Gould and others. My job is done if we start to see actual proposals of heirarchies which may or may not be metrically congruent to ones created in cladistics or other similar disciplines (panbiogeography , baraminology etc). Please note GP's ref(f)p7 "one could study, at the same time, the change in the extent of the structure-formation processes or changes in the thermodynamic stability of structure-formation process or changes in the thermodynamic stability of living structures in the processes of ontogenesis and phylogenesis. It would be pertinent to note here that, in terms of the general mechanism the evolution of natural biological structures is avalanche-condensation structure formation - a phenomenon opposite, as regards direction, to branching processes,which, for instance, take place during the electric gas discharge or branching chemical and nuclear reations. In a sense, life resembles a gravitational collapse uniting "small-scale structures" into large bodies."I,BSM, have indeed spoken of this in passing once or twice in the web. The place this difference was brought to my read attention outside of GP's work was in the chemisty of cell wall formation in plants. The only vairance between GPGs and BSMs view to this grammetology is that I had recently been trying to

quote:

---

In those years, most scientists were convinced that classical (equilibrium) thermodynamics had nothing to do with the origin of life, biological evolution and the aging of living beings. This was repeatedly pointed out to me by the famous Nikolai N. Semenov. This seemingly irrevocable conviction elevated to the rank of absolute truth had many reasons. The main one wa that classical thermodynamics could not be applied to open and, as was asserted, far from equilibrium biological systems. It was assumed that all processes in the living systems are far from equilibrium. However, the type of equlibrium was not specified.

---

But everything hangs here on the English word "however".
I had taken vector calculus getting high grades in the math class at this time but could not figure out what to use it for in biology (Wolfram has subsequently used a "simple program approach" to generate a new partial differential equation THAT LOOKS like it could have biological application) so I kept looking in Cornell's Mann (Biology ) Library. Eventually I settled for the work of Vavilov, Medawar and Thompson but when I TOOK this literature search on formly in specifically approved project on Xenodontinae I was accused of lack of hypothesis prior to statistical testing. When I objected I was thrown out of school (that is a very biased short precise of what happened). Regardless it was true that in the 80s (I think this may explain why Wright tried to admonish Provine over "the phenotype" at this time that EVERY SCIENTIST I COULD LISTEN TO or TALK TO on the Cornell Campus Only Assumed some such equilibrium wihtout specifiying EXACTLY what this "landscape" was! I merely attempted to try to collect data to better define what all actually thought already existed. As I understand Gladyshev today his signed work will work provided the process/system is defined ahead of time.
Creationist general criticism of "evolutionary mechanism" is that this is not defined and I have extended my taxanomic acumen without doing this by using Baraminology but I still, nor does anyone esle have the actual equilibrium. I do not know if GPS's symbology is lexically correct for any Bauplan (an operative word for the use of Valvilov, Thompson, and Medawar I and others could have originally had in mind before) but for the bilaterian 'plan', hoxology, deep homology, and modern evo-devoi it seems engineerable. Bio"enginering" is like making dinner. YOu stop discussing what is on the menu and you /one starts to do the cooking TO SEE if the meal comes out well or not. Taste would be operative to this stage of biology but not to the creationist issue of "dominion on Earth" EvC has been a part of scienceGould SOET
"I have referred (Gould, 1985a) to this failure of Darwin's sensible argument to impress itself upon the actual history of life as "the paradox of the tier" - thus also giving away my preference between th two major possibilities for resolution (see forthcoming disscussion, and my defence of nonfractal "tiers" of time with different predominating causes and patterns, with Darwin's good argument operating only at the first tier and unable to to "push through" to impose a pervasive vector upon the history of life.) If we accept my characterization of this situation as a paradox we must ask why..."(The creationist has two alternatives here.) I do not know that a fractal concept can not be SYNTHESIZED from Boltzmans' as he only said relevant to this BSMpoint as I currently understand it, that ,atomistic numerology is not against infinite divisibility to any order of actutal measurement but as the systematist's subjectivity is used to discuss contiguity IN TIME as well as IN SPACE it is not clear to me, how one can relate ones intuitive use of fractal shapes differently or equal in any given (by macrothermodynamic aggregationing for instance) interval, of space or time. This is why Einstein's view of physical reality may be even more beneficial in biology than has already occurred in Physics. It is true that when GG is thinking more of the openess BM is considering the nature of the closedness(in part becuase I am interested to learn if open electrotonics in quasi-equilibria of G's law(whether by default of supramolecular direction or not) that Helmholtz and not Maxwell conceived might exist).This is my most recent view of GPs work. When I first started to read "macrothermodynamics" I investigated Helholtz's DOUBLE LAYER theory of "eletrical osmose" and concluded on the basis of a TWO WAY assumtion that it was true that in additon to the points of partical position around a nucleus "it is desriable to compare specifcially the recent with the older conclusions concerning the validity of the ideal kinetic thoery OF SUSPENSIONS in that a 'high' degree of ideality exists in the molecular-kinetic behavior of dilute suspensions BECUASE Gladyshev had SPLIT GIBBS' "G" into ideal PLUS (water has been added)(Helmhotlz HAD a moveable 'liquid' layer) some kind of "inifinty process A= which I had then read as Feynamna's use of inifinty in the idea that QED applied to biology sans gravity. This however is too "cryptic" for those or 'us": here on EVC who are unwilling. suspicious, or refuse outright to use the notion of acutal infinity when reasoning within SCIENCE (Cantro's continuous motion in discontinuous space etc) so it would be best if I rewrite this. I will so for now the above more recent overview will have to suffice for any other "Brad Zone".I had left this following out my last post on how I think and is crucial for full integration of my ideas, Gould's and GP'sBioinformatics can, absolutely, be as a means to asses various denials of Euclid's postulate V.1)Use two forms of 1-D symmetry distributed by so-called Central Dogma or like kind to generate aposteriori "two right angles" Rotations compared to Quaternions representing thermal contacts in closed electron currents may necessary to construct them.
2)Provide a definition of alleomoph series in terms of self-similar 1-D symmetry for any DUAL aspect of space(point, line,plane) where any straight line receives a harmonic congugate on one side only by reason apriori of logical failure of postulate V in the data as statistics reveals or could reveal.
3)Construct Hamiltonians to record the 2 DIMensional dissemination of the Formal 1-D symmetries by setting per thermal contact any two "right angles" equal and calculate the concurrent isolation by distance. Make the two interior angles morphometrically spaced between the unique 3-D presentation of ionic chemistry titration in entropic equilibrium and use incidence to asses statistical relative frequencies
4)Show what cells meet these conditions catastrophically with ordertypes coordinating the uniqueness to quantitative genetics
5)Get water balance topographical leveling (desert vs mountain) adptaions per migrations
6)Grow local food and disseminate in the Solar SystemDiagram to show how delta T derived from difference of time for electron motion in thermal CIRCUT and Fourier heat flow (postulating THIS is cause of Huxley's grade-clade difference not Crick's force between base pair (or chemical "acridine")) hence there is logical room GP truth of nonbranching aposteriori results AND baraminological access to nonhomogenous distributions fractally similar in time and space IF ONLY THIS% but that is a restriction I have so far not tried to enter on c/e discussions at all. This indeed may update Gladyshev's depreication (and rightly so I must remark) of any entangling of Shannon's entropy H and Gibbs' entropy S etc(both classical and statistical) but to work it out in full it requies not only my own outline but specific actual hierarhic idenfications of changes life bring to chemicla equilibiria from just the part contributed by Faraday THEMAL CONTACT in a DNA-Protein-RnA circle of electron transport no matter the level of aggregation informationally for some rigours use of S.
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
In Georgi's book (f) he kindly supplied me an English translation of the abstract and forward where on can read, "It becomes apparent that new horizons of development and application of thermodynamic theory will be encountered in the future. It seems likely that more precise and complete models of the function of living systems will appear. However, the author is convinced that they will rely upon the fundamentals of natural science"&"Above all. much of the work reflects the fact that the author was successful in "broadening" the apparatus of classical thermodynamics and applying it to open hierarchical evolutionary biological systems. Apart from this, the interpretation of a series of fats in the author's previous publications has been re-thought and refined in accordance with the latest data found in scientific literature. In all cases, these refinements have reinforced the conviction of the author in the veracity of the fundamental postulates of the theory. However, biology still retains numerous unresolved problems. This is connected to the hugely complicated questions facing theories of phylogenesis and ontogenesis."There is a potential (but possibly only linguistic "conflict" between GPGs and BSMs where PNAS Cornell Researchers wrote, "The structure of the RNA is thus determined by its biosynthetic pathway and is not necessarily the same as the structure achieved at thermodynamic equilibrium(24)...Therefore we believe the important consideration is which pairing regions forms first and not which pairing region is the strongest" but *this* could be the other way around if the 2nd law thermo were in relative frequency equivalence (no matter the simultaniety) per series where GP for instance recognizes deltaG varing by magnitude with levels of organization but in opposite directions for spontaneous and nonspontaneous processes. I noticed this textually in the long quote above where GP discusses why he doesnt think (in the context of how phenomenological thermodynamics is a subsequnet discipline FROM classical thermodynaics (Gibbs etc)) low-entropy products"" ACCUMULATE but where Georgi thinks of the 2nd law of thermo I HAD THOUGHT OF THE 1st. The specific genetics that I am trying to both USE Gladyshev's formalism and also verify my suspicion or "fantasy" is in the relative sub and super diploid DNA content distributed across mitotic VS meiotic cells. At this subciption I have no idea how the formalism which uses values of delta G on both sides of a "zero" can be applied to radially symmetric and protozoans where I need to find some application so as to be able to use any evidence to test Gould's claim of relative frequency lest the all of this effort simply devolves to a "debate" which is not my intention.Thus while I may not have had a "conscious" connection to classical thermodynamics when I first came across GPs work, my continued posting on EvC and the constant nagging by posters to continually rephrase my own understanding has led me to a position that may indeed reveal what had not been obvious to Gladyshev before when he wrote, p15 ref e above "To avoid misunderstandings, I would like to stress that, using the term "information," I referred to the transmission of characters (features of composition and structure, properties, charcteristics) between strucutres of the same type (e.g. bectween macromolecules, such as DNA and protein) inside one study of biolgical syustsmsIn ref 1 "On The Principle of Substance Stability and Thermodynamic Feedback" Georgi page three wrote "Thus, the atom involved in the formation of a relatively fast (stable) chemical bond(s) and, thereby, having already used its main "contact" energies capabilities can only form relatively weak intermolecular bonds. And on the contrary, the sam atom involved in the formation of a relatively weak chemical bond(s) can form fast (stable) intermolecular bonds. Note that our principle agrees with the earlier concept of L. Pauling based soley on the energy possibilites of the atoms involved in the formation of various chemical bonds (Pauling 1947; Tulub, 1989)."
My most current view is slightly more complicated than this aggregate representation because in addtion to weak vs strong bond activity relative to stability I am suggesting a specifically biologically active addtion (possibly self similar (but the actual non phenomenolgical detail would have to be seriously reserached should the effect be accounted for) of stability (for EITHER the weak or strong chemical bond) due to thermal contact electrical transmission effects on ionic titrations (open and closed electrotonics can be artifically man-made heterogenous where biological macrothermodynamics is as homogenous as developement/natural environoment and heritability can "afford" )among heritable sets of weak and strong bonding sturcutures no matter the function in adaptive vs nonadaptive traits but probably bearing substantially on the "evolution" of dominance if more than Mendel's use of the common denominator symbol per empirical vs ideal numbers. The relation of entropy of state vs kinetic entropy affects is difficult to evaluate without acutal DNA sequence data and the expressions of these base pairs.I will conclude this comparison with a last quote of Georgi which I hope applies to both him and me. "However, the reader my still come to the conclusion: "But what's new in this material?" In fact there is much that is new! The work constitutes a new floor on the "old" building of science, which stands solidy on classic foundations. Undoubtly, the key to this innovation is the law of temporal hierarches, formulated by the author. This law cannot be derived from one or other well-known conditions. It must therefore be considered a general law of nature, applicable to any living system."(f(above)-"Forword").The devise to test for thermal circuit conduction(historically against Volta) is not a well known nor even proposed (except so far by me or implied perhaps in Nordenstrom's biologically closed electric circuits)) condition of biological change but in the process of defining particular heirarchies Gould insists be thought deviations from Gladyshev's law may reveal it has actually been known all along only obscured by the difficulty of interdisciplinary nature of the subject that GP has kept more pure without a hypothesis such as this I had assumed explain why Gould did not heed St. Hilliare observation of the platypus no matter the recieved relation of classical and phenomenolgical thermodynamics.All of the levels mighy concievable recieve consistency if for instance the fundamental series in flame spectra enumerate the relative stability of the atoms up to the expression of melanin as a mirror effecting a biological registr
ation of the speed of light for adaptive purposes but I am not weddedto a necesarry adaptive hardening as expressed by Gould historically. The most difficult point I have uncovered is that while it may be true that "the concept of the classical entropy S and other functions of state G, F (Gibbs and Helmholtz functions whose differentials are exact
). It is evident that these theories fives no information about the molecular and similar "dynamic" mechanisms of the evolution porocesses."
it is not clear that this state can not be homogenously""
disrubuted ACROSS Wright's shifiting balance theory. In other words different kinematics of the state processeswith some kinetic input and output additionally may in its own dynamic community whether adpataive or simply recessive etc(and)be ORTHOGONAL in the sense of a mutation relative to any level of selection (on any level of organization) but this requires that cross level effects
(no matter parralels vs convergences)
be NOT concieved as things and Wolfram's
ideas on overselling of natural selection be false which without the specific physcho-chemical time I, BSM, proposed would have GPs work more for its lexic than grammetololgical benefit. Generally I have in mind that Cantor's continuous motion in discontinuous space would apply in Gladyshev's variable relation of t^(j-1)<

​

One of the most glaring differences in the reasoning faculties of GP and BS is in how we each explain/justify any view of "feedback" from populations to DNA GG uses "This becomes clear if one recollects that during self-assembly, equilibria (for instance, those between liquid-phase structures and the self-assembled structures, which are associated to the same structures in the aggregated phase )usually shift towards the aggregated phases...In other words, in such a situtation, the rates of exchange processes between the phases are different." and I, BM USE a differnce of 1-D symmetries ++ and >>(see SYMMERTY by Hermann Weyl for a used example) univocally.

​

My offering brings a pervasive "vector" that comes through in the different uses of S ( there need not necessarily be "Gladyshev's principle"(use of LEAST STABLE LOWER LEVEL COMPONENTS IN FORMATION OF SUPRAMOLECULAR STABILITY across the geographically realizable biogeography) in group selection which need now to be taken apart in terms of levels of organization with edges BUILT by 1-D symmetry thermostats"" but there IS NO difference of adaptation and exaptation unless we have actual knowledge that nature turned which for instance a photon heirarchy into an electron one revolving in the devolution. But this last can be ignored for the time being as it is a rather harsh conclusion I have forced on my own objectivity.It jsut be that I have found a simpler way to re-express GG's law in terms of a single notion of time biophysically. Regardless of my own specifics the general approach of Gladyshev can survive formally in trying to bring Mendelism into his use of a transtition from classical to phenomenological thermo.

​

CONSCTRUCTIVE CRITICISM
In two places G.P. Gladyshev has indicated a flexibility in the phenomenonology that seems fairly important when it comes to relating the any quantifications to the descriptive nature of biology as stamp collecting whether on the level of genomes or biodiversity informatics. In particular ref(1)p50 "However, these structural types are not general for all bio-systems. For instance, it is possible that certain cells (nerve cells, heart muscle cells) are not renewed throughout the human life. These cells are, as if, not cells in the usual sense; in this case t^(cell) (for these cells) should be removed from the series (1). A similar phenomenon is observed for the fruit fly: no cell in the adult fly body undergoes division. Likewise, the proteins of the animal eye lens are almost never renewed. In this case, the lifetimes of these macromolecules do not fit the series (1) either. The space hierarchy does not mathc the temporal hierarchy in the above examples. In such a case, the corresponding lifetimes of the structures are as though involved in the next temporal hierarchy." & in ref(d)p166 "The law of temporal hierarchies (1,2,5,6,12,34) makes it possible to identify quasi-closed thermodynamic systems (subsystems) in open biosystem. It is possible to study their development (ontogenesis) and evolution (phylogenesis) by studying the changes of the value of the specific (per unit of volume or mass) Gibbs function of the formation of the higher hierarchicial sctructure out of lower-level structures...(Gibbs' minimization)...Let us note that Eqn (2) implies thaking account of all supramolecular interactions in all hierarchical bio-tissue structures (intracellular, intercellular and others). This is fully justified because the structural hierarchy does not always coincide with the temporal hierarchy. Thus, some types of cells do not divide and, like organisms, age simultaneously with the organism. However, any supramolecular hierarchy (j-1) has some higher hierarchy (j+x), so that
t^(j-1) << t^(j+x)
where t^(j-1) and t^(j+x) are the mean life times (life spans) of elementary structures of the corresponding structural hierarchies in a living system, x= 0,1,2, ..., etc.

​

Personally there does not need it seems to me to be a difference of ontogeny and phylogeny as the correction of any "wrong" recapitulation (I had left out in the "..." "that in ontogenesis)or phylogensis)" (which I read as noun choice))might be reversed if one thought it also logically possible that phylogeny RECAPITULATES ontogeny despite the seeiming nonrationality of negating or rather inverting the thought.

​

So continuing(to read nature or science), textually

​

"The use of equality (2) means, in fact, that we apply that law of temporal hierarchies as (1,34);
...<
Here, t^(m) (t(^ch) is the average life span of an organism's molecules (chemical compounds) that take part in metabolism, t^(im)(t^(supra)) is the average life span of any supramolecular structures of an organism's tissues that are renewed in the process of its growth and development, t^(organism) is the average life span of an organism in a population. And t^(pop) is the The series of strong inequalitites(3) does not include the life span of cells(cell) and some toher supramoleuclar strucutres...open biological systems."

​

In the application to biology (no matter the thought on "recapitulation") just because the atoms might be all accounted for does not mean that the biological property is NECESSARILY contained in the continutiy of the full differential process. Gould's reasoning for instance insists that higher hieratchical levels can be thought out independently (BECAUSE THEY CAN BE TESTED STATISTICALLY IN MORPHOSPACE DISCONTINUITES) of the lower and his whole last book is about this point of view because he does not invest in a particular physcio-chemistry. Lewontin seems to assert lack of unversal topoplogy to justify somewhat the same. The became more evident with the working out of the difference of biometricians and mendelians and applies to macrothermo where the mendelian triat is at issue itself which Gladyshev has not said does not apply. On the contrary he fully expected this application in biology. Nonetheless becuase of the DATA on the supramoleuclar level Gladyshev seemed confident that the pheonomenon of macrothermo was not at variance with any known laws of nature (such as the evolution of dominance??) yet the ability to associate contiguity with some difference in the sequecences involved termporal vs spatial by the Gibbs or Helmhbotz state functionality does not suffCiently mean that it is OK to take out certain signs in the heriearchical series and rely on the continuity of the Gibbs funciton say to take care of the inequality. This is how Gladyshev was able to correctly criticize the difference of Information entropy from Prigogine entropy from classical entropy from a phenomenological approach to Entropy. And science will if it has not already benefited benefit from the clarity on the part of GP on this but there is further issue if one intends to have this work work under scaling to the geolgoical scale which the evolutionist remands but the creationist today need not.

​

So assuming then a macrothermo application that is discrete genetically biologically the objection of Rene Thom to Collet may not apply when in another discpline an attempt to found a well ordering on the basis of graph theory in complexity physics was attempted. For the purpose of criticism only I assume that Collet was somewhat more correct than Thom and that indded a set of the power of the continuum was constructed using totally a lexicographic ordering that ended up matching the discretness of the natrual numbers set (written P(N)) for all of the subsets involved. This however is not the well ordered concept created by Cantor but for the purpose of using the GPinequality genetically in macrothermo Cantor defintion may not be involved. That is the question that this criticism re-reads. The problem resolves into finding if "analgous" N sets do not exist which despite the missing integer into one element of P(N) is isomorphic (biologically(no matter the genetics)) to the missing part of gladyshev's sequences in his serial law. That is the work that theoretical biology has before it. As Collet put it, "That the first part which uyse the set of the subsets of the natural numbers set (P(N)) is the most important, becuase the proof of the possibilty to built a well-ordering on the continuum seems made int the ZFC's theory, and we ask to the reader to try to find if it exists a point where the theory is no more respected. This point will be debated inthe third part, but we shall be very galid if the reader had himself rnage successively evey point of that proof. These points are obvisouly \few" Lacunae" (missing intergfer into on eelement of P(N)), Inverse Lexicographic Ordering, particitonj of N in 3 infinte proper susbsets adn inversion of the natural ordiering of two of these infinfei subsets. Of course the reader will have to searhc if there is no other point which couold have escaped the author,... and pleast ot sya iot to him. To be sure, an other solution would be that the goal of the tyring is not attainedm, and that the Continuum is not well-ordered, but this one would be perhaps more difficlut to show."(Bio-Math 2001).

​

It doesn matter this latter only that the Gibbs minimization or equvialent contain the homolgy to N.

​

RE-WRITE
The creationist might need to use all of this as well. Especially when it comes to relating baraminology to pre-flood distribuitions out of the space of current understanding of entropy on the issue of Croizat's "corelation" of geology and biology made into the baseline model by New Zeland and South American Panbiogeographers. If a rigours seperation of entropy aka GP continues to be needed then this can not be seriously approached but if I am correct that there is some use of transfinites (not an abivalnece about thinking from cardianals OR ordinals) and that the garden vs country of Mendel applies to the population back to DNA macrothermo IN a gibbs or Helmhotz minimization NO MATTER the kinetics of prigogine (by equilibrium of supdipliod and supradiploid) in the shifting balance via the "evolution" of dominance for any "rate" of Croizat then the nonuse of geodesics would have been deduced or deducible. The only issue would be would be if a one-way function can be mathmetically proposed that prohibits the kind of confusion that GP had already cleared.
Collet had started in 1973 to define the G-entropy (Generalized Entropy) and as late ast 2001 wrote a paper titled eS
eass o
n Generalixation of the Notion of Entropy allowig to unify the equations of statstical thermodynamics, of the theory of information and of the mathematical theory of strucutre. (both in Bio-Math)
My approach uses rotations RELAVTIVE to quarartenions with macrothermo across the shifting balnce expressed with Collets lacunae WITHIN the Gibbs or Helmhotz minimization. It would matter which as to the chemistyr but NOT THE PHSYCIS!

​

But the real question is why was not the equilibrium approach which Gladyshev supports NOT worked further mathematically in Wright's ideas. One reason surely has been that Provine continued to hope for more learning on Wright but refused to see any interactiviy between Fisher and Wright and continued to find the Wright ecological preference and small peak shifts as incomphreneshible WHILE also NOT atttempting to help students who might. As I presented this thread I pose the use of macrothermodynamcis to ASK a question but I have notanswered it fully because in the course of reading GP and writing this it occurred to me that the distribuition curve that is equilibrated in Wright may DEPEND on Gladyshev's law AND be self similar
(or self similiar in time but only partially so in space etc etc)
in higher order Catastrophe sets if one MUST (I dont know) insist that the(a)
se
peration of various S entropies and Hentropy contra Collet. As I last read the scholarship on Wright there was insistence on

​

numerical approaches rather than pure math as I alternate with here (also the idea of "next mutant" may simply be an at a glance "rip off" of Wright's minor vs major mutation which Wright explictly stated he did not use (nor need) (I know for herpetology it was not necessary if Wright's equilibria were not extended to the hierarchical level differences that Gladyshev targets as Gould admitted in his last large book that they have not and it is far from clear that Wright's "chromosome rearragnements and small peak shifts" correlation does not apply homogneously acroos ALL herpetological taxogeny and like kind discontinuity!!)
If my apporach trumps GPG's then this is only becuase somewhat phenomeolgically like Kervran I will have been able to build the gladyshev law contructively from a smaller starting point, namely, at thelevel of the nucleus and electron "orbits" and this would be the TIME to include the ICR rate results but for it all to work this symbology would have to have acutal group selection theory effects in the biology invovled esle it is just a formalism like that Gladyshev signed except that the 2nd law would have been privelged over the 1st in the issue of adaptive vs nonadatpvie traits in any alleomorph series. Do not photons and electrons permit ONLY two natural orderings of the infinite subsets in any denail of Euclid's axiom V? Find the bijection that is avoided in (in the
Gadysheve inequality)any individual taxogeny or like kind creation. With two infinte subsets as an intersection on any collection locality it becomes possible to disuss how eco-justice might exist ecosystem engineering as the acutal population macro thermo numbers are projected irregardles of economic turnover and we start to eat what we can afford not what we afford to eat and Eldgrediges' notion of dominion is ajudged solved in c/e. C/E might actually BE the means to equate a possible well ordering and a macrothermodynamic contiguity that Galelio's utility unifies by water balance under migrations and displaced Earth. The ability to harness our understanding of genetic change for biomass productivty may be the ending work of agricutlre that contra Eldridge did not result in man moving OUT of ecosystems but merely moving SLOWLY into them!!!!!!!!!!!!!

​

"Motive forces" could be harnessed/yoked and the enironmental consciousness leverged into actual sustainable eco-JSUTICE with this conscious relation to classical entropy and sythetic theory. The outstanding questions are the likes of , "can a non-bijection fully account for the missing terms in the Gladyshev law under inequal conditionings
(the bijection issue of Collet arises due to the uncertainty in the ligustic status of Gladyshev words used "ontogensis" and/or "phylogensis" as a discussion of Dostal's use of these words in plants would indicate in non-AngloSaxon content and context(taxogeny is not speciation))?" "Will the incidence of mutations upset any gains that could have been engineered in a prior agricutural time?" "Ar non-terrestrial dynamics necessary input into the calculation of group effects?" "re non full differential materialism suffienct to account for all of the phenomena involved?" Does it matter if some of the signs are axioms or defintions? None of these questions prevent R&D from begining but seeing how long it takes or never gets taken when a new idea in biology is proposed (as opposed to physics say which might get tested much more quickly) this one may need much time and those people who suppressed my education to this point may continue to prevent others from getting this information but the internet at least provided a means around their resistence."".

​

There are undobuted benefits of Gladyshev's work and now I clearly see that it extends BEYOND the use of tissue re-engineering
(in any sense)towhole populations.
It will be insteresting to see per deductions if the two proper infinte subsets do not get the parental longitutde and latitutdes in Wright's isolation by distance disposing of Provine's search for the Fokker-Plank equivalent in Galdayshev's "law" instead chalking it up to misplaced historigography traceable to Wright's comment on Gould where he invoked yoked chromosme rearrangements AND peak shifts. Since Gladhyshve's principle and law takes account of any minor vs major mutaitons during any specification of stasis (bradytley) and fast change(thertly) the ecocological may be the final conceptual advance opening up behavior as well rather than Gould's ideas for any other red queen etc.
an
d if EvC simply just gets across an interest in the work then some advance will have been made even if the particular proposal I have made by comparison to my own ideas does not have I high recidivism
rate it will have been worth it just to show formmally how wrong Eldgredge was in latest anti-Creationist book(The Triumph of Evolutionadn the failure of creationism)
It is possible that only the reciprocity in my writing need be retained by future generations but seeing the move from nuclear to biological weapons it is premature to uncategorically make this judgement even if it seems correct. I will not do that yet. And as it appears to simply rely STILL on the word KIND I strongly disagree with anyone who does not heed this advice on equilibria.

​

[This message has been edited Brad McFall, 05-03-2004]

​

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-15-2004 09:06 AM